scan_mcp_tool_result
Scan an upstream MCP tools/call result for PII, injection, and volume anomalies
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | ||
| agentId | Yes | ||
| toolName | Yes | ||
| serverUrl | No |
Cyphrex
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states the scanning categories (PII, injection, volume anomalies) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how anomalies are reported, whether it modifies the result, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the core purpose. However, the typo 'tools/call' and the lack of any supplemental detail prevent a perfect score, though this is not a padding or verbosity issue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides only a high-level scanning intent. It fails to explain input semantics, output format, error behavior, or integration with sibling tools like 'proxy_mcp_request'. The description is too minimal to be considered complete in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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. The function of 'agentId', 'toolName', 'serverUrl', and 'result' is not explained. Only 'result' is implicitly referenced via 'upstream MCP tools/call result', leaving the other three parameters without semantic meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Scan') and identifies the resource ('an upstream MCP tools/call result') plus the intent (detect PII, injection, and volume anomalies). It distinguishes from the sibling 'scan_mcp_tools_list' by focusing on a call result rather than a tool list, though the phrase 'tools/call result' is slightly awkward.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'scan_mcp_tools_list' or 'proxy_mcp_request'. The description implies it is used after an upstream MCP call, but does not explicitly state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action: checking proposed actions, logging/reading audit data, proxying requests, registering/verifying agents, scanning different payload types, and setting profiles. The separation between check_action and scan_mcp_tool_result is clear from their descriptions (proposed action vs. upstream result).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., check_action, get_audit_log, set_behavior_profile). No mixing of styles or vague verbs beyond standard operation names.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a security-focused MCP governance server. Each tool addresses a clear need without redundancy or excessive granularity.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: agent registration, verification, behavior profiling, action checking/logging, audit retrieval, proxying, and scanning. Minor gaps include no explicit agent removal or policy management tools, but these may be intentionally outside the server's scope.