search_js_fingerprint_by_cdnSearch JS fingerprints by CDN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cdn_type | Yes | ||
| unpinned_only | No | ||
| cdn_cache_status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context—it doesn't explain result ordering, pagination implications of limit, or how CDN matching works.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence has zero waste and is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of the missing semantics noted in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no description-level parameter explanations, the tool definition is not complete enough for effective use. The output schema helps with return values, but key filter semantics (cdn_cache_status, unpinned_only) remain opaque.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It only hints that cdn_type is the CDN filter; unpinned_only, cdn_cache_status, and limit are entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for such low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (search) and resource (JS fingerprints) with a CDN qualifier, clearly distinguishing it from sibling hash-based search tools like search_js_fingerprint_by_md5 or search_js_fingerprint_by_sha1. However, it is extremely terse and doesn't elaborate on what 'by CDN' means in practice.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this CDN-based search versus the many sibling alternatives (by library, by bundler, by hash, etc.). There are no usage examples, scenarios, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools overlap in purpose, particularly the JS fingerprint search functions (e.g., search_js_fingerprint_by_md5 and search_jsfingerprints_by_md5) which are nearly identical. The large number of get_* and search_* tools for various statistics also creates boundary ambiguity.
The verb_noun pattern is mostly followed, but there are significant inconsistencies: 'jsfingerprints' vs 'js_fingerprints' vs 'js_fingerprint', and the occasional use of 'find' instead of 'search' (e.g., find_js_fingerprint_similar_by_hash). This mixed style makes it hard to predict tool names.
With 128 tools, the server is severely over-scoped. Many tools could be combined (e.g., all search_jsfingerprints_by_* variants) or parameterized. The sheer number overwhelms an agent and suggests poor API design.
The core URL scanning workflow (submit, retrieve results, search, analyze) is well covered, including detailed sub-analyses like malware, YARA, and JS fingerprints. Minor gaps include no scan cancellation or user-specific scan listing, but overall coverage is strong.