submit_scan_reportSubmit a scan report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_id | Yes | ||
| x_real_ip | No | ||
| user_agent | No | ||
| report_type | Yes | ||
| skip_captcha | No | ||
| captcha_token | No | ||
| captcha_answer | No | ||
| report_details | No | ||
| x_forwarded_for | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false, and destructiveHint false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not explain what happens when a report is submitted, captcha requirements, or any side effects, so the description contributes little 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 short but under-specified. It is a single sentence that merely restates the tool name, so it does not earn its place by adding useful information. True conciseness would distill meaningful guidance, not just repeat the 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?
With 9 parameters, captcha-related complexity, and no output schema details shown, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about the submission process, required inputs, or expected behavior, making it impossible for an agent to use this tool effectively based solely on the description.
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 by explaining any of the 9 parameters, including the required scan_id and report_type. Parameters like skip_captcha, captcha_token, and report_details are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent without semantic understanding.
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 'Submit a scan report.' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title. It provides a verb and a resource but adds no scope or distinguishing detail, making it a tautology rather than a clear explanation of what the tool specifically does.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like submit_scan or when not to use it. The description gives no context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any decision-making 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.