Skip to main content
Glama

PreClick — An MCP-native URL preflight scanning service for autonomous agents.

by ai.preclick

url_scanner_async_scan_with_intent

Read-only

Submit a URL with optional user intent for asynchronous security analysis. Returns immediately with a task_id. Poll with url_scanner_async_task_status to check progress, then url_scanner_async_task_result to get the scan result. Async counterpart of url_scanner_scan_with_intent for clients without native MCP Tasks support.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL to analyze. Must be HTTP or HTTPS. If no scheme provided, https:// is assumed.
intentNoOptional user intent for visiting the URL. Recommended for additional context.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses the asynchronous behavior: it returns immediately with a task_id rather than the result, requiring polling. This is valuable context not captured in annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result, followed by the polling process and a comparative note. Every sentence contributes meaning with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple parameter schema, rich annotations, and the existence of sibling tools, the description fully explains the async workflow, the role of this tool, and how to retrieve results. No output schema is needed because the description itself guides the follow-up steps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds the notion 'optional user intent' but does not introduce new parameter details beyond what the schema states, so a baseline score is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool submits a URL with optional user intent for asynchronous security analysis and immediately returns a task_id. It distinguishes from the synchronous counterpart and the async version without intent by name and behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says to use this tool when clients do not have native MCP Tasks support, and prescribes the polling workflow with url_scanner_async_task_status and url_scanner_async_task_result. This differentiates it from the synchronous and non-intent variants.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All PreClick — An MCP-native URL preflight scanning service for autonomous agents. toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: sync vs async scan, with/without intent, and task status vs result retrieval. The descriptions explicitly clarify when to use each, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to select.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names follow a predictable url_scanner_ prefix pattern with consistent suffixes for intent ('_with_intent') and sync/async distinction. The minor inconsistency is mixing 'async_scan' for submission with 'async_task_status'/'async_task_result' for polling, but the pattern remains readable and understandable.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a URL scanning service: it covers the sync/async dimension, intent context, and the full task lifecycle (submit, check status, get result). No redundant or missing categories for the core purpose.

Completeness4/5

The core scan lifecycle is fully covered (sync and async, with intent, status polling, result retrieval). The only notable gap is the lack of a cancel operation for async tasks, which could be useful for long-running scans, but this is a minor omission not likely to cause agent failures.

Resources