Scan public websites for privacy, cookie, tracker, consent, policy, and disclosure risk signals. Start instantly with zero-auth Light mode—no account or API key required.
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.
Average 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct role: scan_site starts a scan, get_scan_status checks progress, and get_scan_bundle retrieves results. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (scan_site, get_scan_status, get_scan_bundle).
Three tools are appropriate for a focused scanning service covering initiation, status, and results retrieval.
Covers the core scan workflow well. Minor gaps like listing or canceling scans exist but are not essential for the described purpose.
get_scan_bundleGet compact CertScore scan bundleARecommended second call after scan_site. Returns the canonical scan state, compact report summary, findings, bounded evidence summary, and pre-consent inventory in one agent-friendly response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scanId | Yes | Stable CertScore scan ID. | |
| maxFindings | No | Maximum compact findings to return. Defaults to 20. | |
| maxPreConsentRows | No | Maximum pre-consent inventory rows to return. Defaults to 20. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| noGo | No | |
| scan | Yes | |
| type | Yes | |
| links | No | |
| scanId | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| summary | No | |
| findings | Yes | |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| evidenceSummary | No | |
| resultDisposition | No | |
| recommendedNextTool | Yes | |
| preConsentCookiesTrackers | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description enumerates all returned components (canonical state, summary, findings, evidence, inventory), which is beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). It also implies pacing via 'bounded' and 'compact', aligning with parameters. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence with front-loaded recommendation, no fluff. 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?
With output schema present, annotations covering safety and variability, and parameters fully documented, the description completes the picture by summarizing the bundle contents. No gaps remain for the intended use case.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema adequately describes parameters. Description adds minimal extra meaning ('compact', 'bounded') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states the tool returns a compact bundle of scan data, including state, summary, findings, evidence, and inventory. It explicitly recommends use after scan_site, distinguishing it from siblings like get_scan_status and scan_site.
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?
Explicitly recommends as second call after scan_site, providing clear usage context. Does not specify when not to use or alternatives, but the recommendation is sufficient for most agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_scan_statusGet CertScore Pulse scan statusARetrieve terminal status, including completed_limited no-go disposition and reason-specific guidance. Pass jobId only before a stable scanId is available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | No | Pulse job ID for a just-created scan that has not yet returned a scanId. | |
| scanId | No | Preferred stable CertScore scan ID for API v2 scan status. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| noGo | No | |
| type | No | |
| error | No | |
| jobId | No | |
| domain | No | |
| scanId | No | |
| status | No | |
| scan_id | No | |
| startedAt | No | |
| completedAt | No | |
| scanTimeSeconds | No | |
| resultDisposition | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds behavioral detail about the status content (disposition and guidance), which is helpful beyond 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?
The description is two sentences. The first states the purpose with specific outputs, the second provides essential parameter usage guidance. No redundant or filler content.
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 an output schema (indicated by context), so the description need not detail return values. It covers the key behavioral aspect (status retrieval with disposition) and parameter usage. Could mention polling behavior or error states, but it is adequate for a status check 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already explains their meaning. The description adds a single usage note about when to use jobId vs scanId, which is valuable but does not significantly elevate the semantics beyond the schema's descriptions.
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 retrieves scan status and specifies a particular disposition ('completed_limited no-go') and guidance. It is specific but uses jargon that might not be universally understood, preventing a perfect 5.
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 gives explicit guidance on when to use each parameter ('Pass jobId only before a stable scanId is available'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_scan_bundle or scan_site, though the context strongly implies this is for status retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
scan_siteScan siteAInspectRecommended first call. Starts or reuses a public-web scan, reports freshness and anonymous quota decisions, and waits up to 45 seconds by default. If still running, use get_scan_status; otherwise use get_scan_bundle. Completed no-go scans retain completed_limited status and reason-specific guidance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public URL or domain to scan. | |
| scanFrom | No | Optional scan execution context for newly queued scans. | |
| freshness | No | Use latest to reuse recent scans or refresh to request a new scan when eligible. | |
| maxWaitSeconds | No | Maximum time to wait before returning the still-running job. Defaults to 45 seconds; never turns an active scan into an error. | |
| waitForCompletion | No | Wait for a completed scan resource in this tool call. Defaults to true. Set false only for an explicitly asynchronous workflow. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| noGo | No | |
| type | Yes | |
| jobId | No | |
| domain | No | |
| scanId | No | |
| status | Yes | |
| scanFrom | No | |
| startedAt | No | |
| completedAt | No | |
| scanTimeSeconds | No | |
| resultDisposition | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses waiting behavior, status handling for no-go scans, and anonymous quota decisions beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate open world and non-idempotent, but description adds concrete operational details.
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?
Very concise with four sentences, front-loaded with 'Recommended first call.' Every sentence adds unique value without redundancy.
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?
Covers the tool's role as entry point, lifecycle guidance with siblings, and special status outcomes. Output schema exists so return values need not be described.
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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. Description adds no parameter-specific details beyond schema, but contextualizes waiting parameters in the overall workflow.
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 the tool starts or reuses a scan, reports freshness and quota decisions, and waits. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying when to use get_scan_status and get_scan_bundle.
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?
Explicitly recommended as first call, with precise guidance on when to switch to sibling tools based on scan completion status.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
