search_js_fingerprint_by_librarySearch JS fingerprints by library name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| library_name | Yes | ||
| min_confidence | No | ||
| version_pattern | No | ||
| include_cdn_only | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name, such as matching semantics, pagination behavior, or filters. It merely restates the tool's purpose without any additional transparency.
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, tight sentence with no unnecessary words, making it very concise. There is no fluff or repetition. However, it is also extremely minimal, which borders on under-specification, but conciseness itself is well-executed.
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 and rich annotations, the description is incomplete for a tool with 7 filtering parameters and many sibling search tools. It fails to mention the additional search capabilities, pagination, or how it relates to similar sibling tools. The description is too sparse to correctly guide tool selection and invocation.
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 the 7 parameters. It only mentions 'library_name', ignoring page, version, per_page, min_confidence, version_pattern, and include_cdn_only. No additional meaning or usage hints are provided for these filters, leaving the agent reliant on guessing from parameter names.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Search'), a resource ('JS fingerprints'), and a scope ('by library name'), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from closely named siblings such as 'search_jsfingerprints_by_library' or 'search_js_fingerprint_by_library_version', so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or superior alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.
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.