search_js_fingerprint_by_serverSearch JS fingerprints by server type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| server_type | Yes | ||
| include_headers | 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 the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—nothing about result ordering, pagination, exact-match semantics, or edge cases. It provides zero 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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope. There is no superfluous content; every word contributes to the meaning. It is appropriately brief for a straightforward search tool.
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 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no usage guidance, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. The output schema exists, so return format explanation is not required, but the description still fails to address parameter semantics and selection criteria among many similar search tools.
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 schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'server type' which directly corresponds to the required 'server_type' parameter, but it does not explain the meaning or purpose of 'limit' or 'include_headers'. The description duplicates the parameter name without adding any new insight.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('Search JS fingerprints') and the specific filter ('by server type'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_js_fingerprint_by_bundler or search_js_fingerprint_by_cdn, so the purpose is unambiguous.
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 alternatives. Among the many similar sibling search tools, there is no mention of scenarios where filtering by server type is appropriate, nor any exclusions or recommendations.
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.