search_js_fingerprint_obfuscatedSearch obfuscated JS fingerprints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| max_score | No | ||
| min_score | No | ||
| classification | No | ||
| min_code_length | No | ||
| exclude_libraries | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds no behavioral context such as result ordering, pagination defaults, or meaning of 'obfuscated'. It fails to communicate any traits not already in 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?
A four-word sentence is technically concise but under-specified; it is not informative enough to earn its place, as it merely restates the title.
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 seven parameters and no schema descriptions, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the search criteria, the meaning of 'fingerprint', or how filters interact.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the seven parameters. Although names like page and per_page are self-explanatory, fields like max_score, min_score, classification, min_code_length, and exclude_libraries lack semantic context.
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 'Search obfuscated JS fingerprints' is a near verbatim restatement of the tool name and title, providing no additional specificity to distinguish it from sibling tools like search_js_obfuscation or search_js_fingerprint_by_fuzzy_hash.
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 regarding when to use this tool versus alternative search tools. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or 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.