search_tracking_keySearch by tracking key (paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| tracker_type | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'paginated', which is a behavioral detail, but it doesn't disclose matching semantics, sorting defaults, or response structure.
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, clear sentence with no filler. 'Search by tracking key (paginated)' delivers the core action and scope efficiently with the key detail front-loaded.
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 5-parameter search tool with zero parameter documentation, this description is under-specified. It provides no context about tracker_type values, output contents, sorting, or how pagination behaves, making it insufficient for confident invocation in many cases.
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 only implies that 'key' is the search term and that results are paginated. It does not explain tracker_type, sort, or limit semantics, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names and default values.
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 specifies a search action on a tracking key and notes pagination. This clearly identifies the tool's primary purpose and distinguishes it from get_top_tracking_keys and other search siblings, though it doesn't elaborate on the exact result context.
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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling search and get tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent without decision support.
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.