search_js_fingerprinter2_composite_hashSearch JS Fingerprinter2 by composite hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| composite_hash | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses no behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It adds no context about rate limits, result ordering, pagination, or other runtime behavior, so the annotation layer does all the work.
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 unnecessary words, making it concise and front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool, even though it largely duplicates the tool's name and 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?
For a simple search tool, the description is minimally sufficient, and the presence of an output schema and annotations reduces the need to explain return values or safety. However, given the large set of sibling search tools, it lacks the contextual differentiation needed to guide an agent toward this specific hash type, and it does not explain what a 'composite hash' is.
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 description clarifies that the composite_hash parameter is the search key, which adds semantic meaning beyond the raw schema. However, the limit parameter is not mentioned at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 states a clear action: 'Search JS Fingerprinter2 by composite hash.' It names the resource and the specific search key, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from closely related siblings like search_js_fingerprinter2_signature or search_js_fingerprinter2_similar, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 other search variants. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or use cases, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name alone.
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.