List the API key owner's recent scans with summary counts. Requires API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max scans (1-100, default: 25) | |
| status | No | Filter by status (queued, running, completed, failed) |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool requires authentication and is scoped to the owner's scans, and mentions summary counts. However, it does not disclose whether it's read-only, any rate limits, or the meaning of 'recent' (time window).
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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated concisely. Every word adds value.
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?
Given the low complexity (2 simple parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and scope. It could mention ordering or the exact output structure, but it is sufficient.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra semantics beyond stating the tool's purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the verb 'List' and specifies the resource 'scans' with clear scope ('API key owner's recent scans') and output ('with summary counts'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_scan' (single scan) and 'list_my_findings' (findings).
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?
Only states a prerequisite ('Requires API key') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_scan' or 'list_my_findings'. No context on when not to use it.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but 'lookup_cve' and 'get_weaponization_score' both focus on a single CVE, which could cause confusion. However, descriptions clarify their different outputs (full enrichment vs. numerical score).
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use 'get_', others 'list_', 'lookup_', 'assess_', 'scan_url', 'search_cves'. No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
14 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range, covering a broad scope of security assessment and intelligence without being excessive.
Core workflows (scanning, vulnerability lookup, threat stats) are covered, but missing update/delete operations for scans and domain verification tool. Notable gaps exist but core functionality is present.
