search_jsfingerprints_by_sha1Search JS fingerprints by SHA1 (paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| hash_value | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the behavioral detail 'paginated', which is not in the annotations. However, it does not describe other relevant behaviors such as result ordering, default limits, or meaning of offset. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description only adds minimal value beyond them.
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 concise sentence that is easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. The word 'paginated' is useful, though it could be expanded into a list structure without losing conciseness.
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 is simple, and the output schema and annotations cover some aspects, but the description is too sparse for an agent to decide when to use it. It lacks alternative guidance and parameter clarity, making it incomplete in the context of many similar 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 must explain parameters. It only hints that 'hash_value' is a SHA1 hash via 'by SHA1', but it does not describe the format or constraints. The 'limit' and 'offset' parameters are not mentioned at all, despite pagination being flagged.
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 'Search JS fingerprints by SHA1 (paginated)', which clearly specifies the action (search), the resource (JS fingerprints), and the search key (SHA1). This distinguishes it from hash-based searches using other algorithms, but it does not differentiate it from the similarly named sibling tool 'search_js_fingerprint_by_sha1'.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling search tools (e.g., by MD5, SHA256, normalized hash, fuzzy hash), but the description does not clarify which one is appropriate for which scenario.
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.