wait_for_scanPoll until a scan reaches a terminal status, returning the final summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_id | Yes | ||
| timeout_s | No | ||
| poll_interval_s | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that the tool performs repeated polling and that it returns a final summary—behavior not covered by the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It does not disclose timeout behavior or outcomes for non-terminal statuses, but the annotations already signal safety and idempotency, lowering the burden. No contradiction exists.
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, front-loaded sentence that packs the essential action ('Poll until terminal status') and result ('returning the final summary') with no wasted words. It is maximally concise while still conveying purpose.
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 description covers the core operation, and the output schema handles return value details. The polling semantics are adequately conveyed, though behaviors like timeout handling or cancellation are not described. Given the annotations and output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain scan_id, timeout_s, and poll_interval_s, but it does not. The parameter names are self-evident, and defaults are in the schema, but the description offers no additional meaning, such as units or the effect of timeout_s on polling behavior.
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 clearly states the verb 'Poll' and the resource 'a scan', with the specific goal of reaching 'a terminal status' and 'returning the final summary'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scan_progress, which merely fetch current progress without waiting, and get_scan_result, which retrieves a result without polling.
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 phrase 'Poll until a scan reaches a terminal status' implies the tool is for blocking until completion, contrasting with one-off retrieval tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., 'use get_scan_progress for non-blocking checks'). The usage context is clear but not fully elaborated.
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.