search_js_fingerprint_by_sha1Search JS fingerprints by SHA1 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 what is already known from the tool name. Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description doesn't mention details such as date-based filtering, limit behavior, or what constitutes a 'fingerprint'.
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, short sentence that is easy to read and free of unnecessary words. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, merely restating the tool's name without adding useful context.
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 five parameters and a large set of sibling tools, this description is insufficiently informative. It does not explain the purpose of date filters or include_scans, nor does it help the agent decide when this tool is preferable over other SHA1-related or hash-based 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 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to explain parameter meanings. It only mentions the hash value, leaving limit, from_date, to_date, and include_scans completely unexplained. The description adds no value beyond the schema's property titles.
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), the resource (JS fingerprints), and the identifier (SHA1 hash). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like search_js_fingerprint_by_md5 or search_js_fingerprint_by_sha256; it relies on the tool name to convey the SHA1-specific scope.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many similar search_js_fingerprint_by_* alternatives. There are no exclusions, preconditions, or references to more appropriate tools for different hash types.
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.