search_jsfingerprints_by_sha256Search JS fingerprints by SHA256 (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 'paginated' which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations, indicating that results are delivered in pages. Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behaviors, so the safety profile is covered. The description does not disclose additional behaviors such as rate limits or exact matching semantics, but for a simple search tool with strong annotations, this is adequate.
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, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and contains no fluff. Each word earns its place; 'paginated' adds useful behavioral info. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward search 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?
Given the tool's simplicity, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive), and the existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the essential purpose and pagination behavior. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that the search is an exact match on SHA256, but that is strongly implied by the wording. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the search is 'by SHA256', giving meaning to the required 'hash_value' parameter. 'Paginated' implies the roles of 'limit' and 'offset' but does not explicitly detail their usage or defaults. This partial compensation is adequate but not thorough, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 JS fingerprints by SHA256' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the operation (search), the target (JS fingerprints), and the lookup key (SHA256). It also mentions pagination, which is a distinct behavioral trait. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that search by other hash types or use different methods, especially the singular 'search_js_fingerprint_by_sha256'.
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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The only hint is that it accepts a SHA256 hash and supports pagination, but it does not say 'use this instead of X' or describe appropriate contexts, so the agent lacks direction for selection.
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.