Run all security checks on a target (URL, domain, IP, or email). Most comprehensive scan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Target to scan — URL, domain, IP address, or email |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully establishing the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond confirming it runs all checks, omitting details like output format or potential runtime, but it does not contradict 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?
Two clear sentences, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds impactful emphasis ('Most comprehensive scan') without unnecessary detail.
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 has a simple one-parameter schema and full annotations, but there is no output schema. The description explains what the tool does but not what the scan returns, leaving the return-value context incomplete. It is minimally viable but could be improved by stating the output format.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage with a detailed description for the 'target' parameter. The description's mention of accepted target types merely repeats the schema content, adding no additional semantic value.
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 'Run all security checks on a target (URL, domain, IP, or email)' specifies a clear action and resource, and 'Most comprehensive scan' explicitly differentiates it from the specialized sibling tools like check_url and check_domain.
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 implies this is the comprehensive option for multi-type targets, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of the individual check_* tools or provide exclusions. The sibling context helps, but the description itself lacks explicit alternatives.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific security checks: domain, email, IP, password, password range, prompt injection, URL, full scan, and skill scanning. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the input type and desired check.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the prefix 'shieldapi.check_' or 'shieldapi.scan_' (e.g., check_domain, check_email, scan_skill). The naming is uniform and predictable, using snake_case throughout without any deviations or mixed conventions.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for a security API, covering a broad range of checks (e.g., reputation, breach detection, threat analysis) without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a unique and necessary function, making the count appropriate for the domain.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for security checks, including domain, email, IP, password, URL, and specialized scans for prompts and AI skills. A minor gap is the lack of update or delete operations, but this is reasonable for a read-only security assessment API, and agents can work around this by using the appropriate check tools as needed.