Boolsai Scan
Server Details
Live tech-stack scan of any public site — vendors, account IDs, scripts, JSON-LD. 2 tools.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- Boolsai-ai/mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools are clearly distinct: one scans a single website, the other scans multiple paths in parallel and merges results. Their descriptions unambiguously differentiate their purposes, so an agent will not confuse them.
Both tools follow a consistent 'boolsai_scan' prefix with a suffix ('_paths' for the second). This pattern is predictable and intuitive, indicating a well-thought-out naming convention.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a scanning service. While the tools cover the core use case of single and multi-path scanning, users might expect additional capabilities like custom configuration or export options. The count is borderline appropriate for the narrow scope.
The tools cover the primary functionality (single scan and multi-path scan) with a useful merge feature. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of options to filter or customize scans, but the core use case is well-served.
Available Tools
2 toolsboolsai_scanBInspect
Scan a public website. Returns its full tech stack — every external host the page talks to, every fetch/xhr/beacon endpoint, every inline-script signal, parsed JSON-LD, and the internal DOM/route trie — as structured JSON. Hostnames are returned raw; recognise vendors from them using your own knowledge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL or bare domain, e.g. "gymshark.com" or "https://allbirds.com/products/legacy-tee". |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes a read-only scanning operation and clarifies it targets public websites. But with no annotations, it lacks detail on error behavior, rate limits, or what happens if the site is inaccessible. Adds moderate value beyond the basic purpose.
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 cover purpose, output contents, and a note on hostname handling. Every word earns its place; front-loaded with main action.
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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return data by listing key elements. Lacks error context and sibling differentiation, but otherwise complete for a scan 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?
Schema covers the url parameter fully (100%). The description does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
Clearly states it scans a public website and returns its full tech stack with specific data elements enumerated. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'boolsai_scan_paths', which could cause confusion about when to use each.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual advice for selecting this tool over the sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
boolsai_scan_pathsAInspect
Scan multiple paths on the same site in parallel and merge the external-host lists. Returns per-path host lists, a unified merged set, and a homepage_missed list (hosts that appeared ONLY on non-home paths). Use when the homepage understates the stack — common on Shopify Plus and consent-gated sites where pixels lazy-load on PDP / cart / checkout. Recommended for ecom audits: paths = ["/", "/products/", "/cart", "/checkout"]. Max 5 paths per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Base URL or bare domain (e.g. "gymshark.com"). | |
| paths | No | Path strings to scan, relative to the base (e.g. ["/", "/products/legacy-tee", "/cart"]). Max 5. If omitted, scans just "/". |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that scanning is parallel, merges host lists, and returns a homepage_missed list. It does not mention destructive actions or authentication needs, but the behavior is well-described for a read-like operation.
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 concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence provides a clear summary, and the second adds usage context and recommendations. Information is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is thorough. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and provides an example. Minor missing detail: error handling for invalid paths, but not critical for selection.
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 descriptions already cover both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by giving limits (Max 5 paths), explaining the default behavior (scans just '/' if omitted), and providing a recommended paths list. This extra context helps an agent use the tool correctly.
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 tool's function: scanning multiple paths in parallel and merging external-host lists. It also lists specific outputs like per-path host lists and homepage_missed, making it distinct from the sibling tool 'boolsai_scan' which likely does single-path scanning.
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 provides explicit context on when to use this tool: 'when the homepage understates the stack' with examples like Shopify Plus. It also gives a recommended paths list. However, it does not directly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, though the sibling context implies when single-path scanning is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!