search_js_fingerprint_patternsSearch JS fingerprints by patterns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| has_eval | No | ||
| has_crypto | No | ||
| no_library | No | ||
| cdn_mismatch | No | ||
| high_entropy | No | ||
| has_websocket | 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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. But the description adds no behavioral context beyond stating 'by patterns' — it doesn't explain how filters combine, what the result set looks like, or what 'patterns' actually means, adding little 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 with no wasted words, so it is concise. However, it is merely a restatement of the title and lacks any structured guidance; while appropriately short, it is under-specified and does not serve the reader well.
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?
The tool has 7 parameters, a large sibling list, and an output schema, yet the description provides almost no context. It fails to explain the unique filtering capability provided by the boolean flags or how it relates to the many similar fingerprint search tools, making it inadequate for correct tool selection.
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 compensate. It mentions 'patterns' but never explains that the parameters (has_eval, has_crypto, no_library, cdn_mismatch, high_entropy, has_websocket, limit) are the pattern filters. The agent gets no help understanding what these flags mean or how they interact.
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 says 'Search JS fingerprints by patterns,' which gives a specific verb and resource, and the 'by patterns' modifier distinguishes it from the many same-resource search tools that search by hash, library, CDN, etc. However, 'patterns' is vague and not elaborated, so it doesn't fully clarify what kind of patterns are meant.
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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this versus the dozens of sibling tools like search_js_fingerprint_by_library or search_js_fingerprint_by_cdn, nor any context about the boolean filter flags that should be used.
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.