Submit a URL 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 for clients without native MCP Tasks support.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to analyze. Must be HTTP or HTTPS. If no scheme provided, https:// is assumed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses key behavioral traits: it returns immediately with a task_id and requires polling via two specific sibling tools. This adds valuable context about the async nature, which annotations alone do not convey.
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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and each sentence adds necessary information (action, immediate return, polling steps, sync alternative). No wasted words.
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?
For a single-parameter async tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers the invocation and follow-up workflow. It explains what returns, how to poll, and when to use it, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 already provides 100% coverage of the only parameter (url) with a clear description including scheme handling. The description does not add additional parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 action ('Submit a URL'), the resource ('URL'), and the purpose ('asynchronous security analysis'). It also distinguishes this tool from its sync counterpart by specifying it returns immediately with a task_id and is designed for clients without native MCP Tasks support.
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 explicitly tells when to use this tool instead of url_scanner_scan ('for clients without native MCP Tasks support') and provides the full workflow: submit, poll with url_scanner_async_task_status, then get results with url_scanner_async_task_result. This is clear usage guidance with an alternative named.
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.
The tools are clearly grouped into synchronous and asynchronous scanning pairs with intent variants, making their purposes distinct. However, the async status and result tools could be slightly confusing as separate tools when they serve closely related polling functions.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear prefixes (url_scanner_) and descriptive suffixes (async_scan, scan_with_intent, async_task_status). The naming is highly predictable and systematic throughout.
With 6 tools, the server provides a well-scoped set that covers both synchronous and asynchronous scanning workflows, including intent variants and polling mechanisms. This count is appropriate for a focused URL scanning service.
The tool set offers complete coverage for URL scanning: synchronous and asynchronous modes, with and without intent, plus status checking and result retrieval. There are no obvious gaps for the domain, supporting full agent workflows without dead ends.