search_js_fingerprint_by_library_versionSearch JS fingerprints by library version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| library | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| group_by_url | No | ||
| include_deprecated | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Aside from the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds no behavioral details. It does not mention pagination, default limit behavior, or how deprecated results are handled. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description contributes no extra 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 sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded. It contains no filler, though it may be too sparse for 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?
For a tool with 5 parameters and many closely related siblings, this description is insufficient. It lacks details about optional parameter behavior, output expectations, and distinguishing characteristics, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 phrase 'by library version' hints at the two required parameters, but the input schema already provides their names/titles. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain limit, group_by_url, or include_deprecated, leaving those parameters ambiguous.
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 the verb 'Search' and specifies the resource 'JS fingerprints' filtered by 'library version', making the basic function clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from closely named siblings such as search_js_fingerprint_by_library or search_jsfingerprints_by_library_version.
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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this over other search tools, what to do with optional parameters like group_by_url or include_deprecated, or any exclusion criteria.
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.