search_js_fingerprint_by_fuzzy_hashSearch JS fingerprints by fuzzy hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| fuzzy_hash | Yes | ||
| min_similarity | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. However, the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—no mention of result ordering, pagination, matching behavior, or any caveats. It contributes nothing beyond what annotations already provide.
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 description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters and many near-identical siblings, so the brevity is more a lack of content than good conciseness.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for practical use. It does not explain what a JavaScript fingerprint is, how fuzzy matching works, or how this tool differs from its many similarly named siblings. The name alone is insufficient to disambiguate.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its 3 parameters (fuzzy_hash, limit, min_similarity). The description fails to explain what 'fuzzy hash' means, how min_similarity affects results, or what limit controls. With zero parameter explanations in both schema and description, the agent is left guessing.
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 'Search JS fingerprints by fuzzy hash' is a tautology that simply restates the tool's name and title. It provides no additional specificity that would help distinguish it from many similar sibling tools such as search_jsfingerprints_by_fuzzy_hash or search_by_fuzzy_hash.
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 given about when to use this tool versus the many similar search tools. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or any context such as preferred scenarios, making it impossible for an agent to decide between this and its siblings.
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.