search_js_fingerprint_by_sha256Search JS fingerprints by SHA256 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=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose; it does not mention pagination, date filtering, exact-match semantics, or return format. With no additional disclosure, the description contributes minimal value beyond the annotations.
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 of eight words, front-loading the core purpose with no unnecessary content. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup 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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate for basic invocation. However, it omits details about optional parameters (limit, dates, include_scans) and search semantics, leaving an agent to infer or guess for more nuanced usage. The presence of clear parameter defaults partially mitigates this gap.
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 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain any parameters. While names like 'limit' and 'from_date' are somewhat self-explanatory, ambiguous fields such as 'include_scans' and date format expectations are left undefined. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 'Search JS fingerprints by SHA256 hash' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that search by other hash types (e.g., by_md5, by_sha1) through the explicit 'by SHA256' qualifier.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention alternatives. However, the name and purpose imply its usage when a SHA256 hash is available, providing a clear but implicit context. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are provided.
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.