search_js_fingerprint_by_normalized_hashSearch JS fingerprints by normalized 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral traits such as normalization details, exact-match semantics, or how include_scans affects results, so it brings no value beyond the structured data.
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 redundant words. It is perfectly front-loaded and every word contributes to the stated purpose, though the under-specification affects 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?
Given the tool's five parameters, the presence of an output schema, and a crowded field of sibling search tools, this one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits critical context about exact matching, date filtering, and how this search differs from other hash searches, leaving the agent without enough information to use it 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only hints at the role of hash_value via 'by normalized hash.' Other parameters like limit, from_date, to_date, and include_scans receive no semantic explanation beyond their schema titles, leaving the agent to guess their purpose.
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 the action (search), resource (JS fingerprints), and criterion (by normalized hash), which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from very similar siblings like search_jsfingerprints_by_normalized_hash or search_js_fingerprint_by_sha1, so it lacks 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other hash-based search siblings. It only implies the use case by naming the search criterion, with no exclusions or alternative suggestions, so an agent gets no decision-making context.
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.