search_js_fingerprint_by_md5Search JS fingerprints by MD5 hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| to_date | No | ||
| from_date | No | ||
| hash_value | Yes | ||
| include_scans | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention that results may be incomplete (open world), nor does it clarify whether the search is exact-match or how optional filters affect results. The read-only and idempotent traits are conveyed solely by annotations, not by the description.
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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is efficiently front-loaded with the action and target, though it is minimal to the point of under-specification.
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 strong annotations, the description leaves the tool's role relative to its many siblings unclear and fails to explain the purpose of optional parameters. With five parameters and a large family of similar tools, the description is under-specified and requires guesswork.
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, and the description only references the concept of 'MD5 hash' without elaborating on the hash_value parameter or any other parameters. Optional parameters like limit, from_date, to_date, and include_scans are not explained, so the agent cannot infer their expected formats or behavior beyond their names and defaults.
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'), identifies the resource ('JS fingerprints'), and specifies the filter ('by MD5 hash'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the very similarly named sibling tool 'search_jsfingerprints_by_md5', so it lacks full sibling differentiation.
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 about when to use this tool versus the many alternative JS fingerprint search tools (e.g., search_js_fingerprint_by_sha1, search_jsfingerprints_by_md5). There are no exclusions or references to alternative tools, so the agent receives no decision-making support.
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.