Skip to main content
Glama

PreClick — An MCP-native URL preflight scanning service for autonomous agents (formerly URLCheck).

by ai.urlcheck

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?

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns immediately with a task_id and requires polling. It also clarifies it is an async counterpart. Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, so this is well-covered.

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 concise sentences, each providing essential information: the action, the async return, and the polling workflow. No wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the async behavior, how to retrieve results, and the relationship to the sync version. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and use the tool.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, with descriptions for url and intent. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 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 identifies the tool as submitting a URL for asynchronous security analysis, returning a task_id immediately. It distinguishes itself from the sync version and from other async siblings by mentioning the polling workflow and the 'with_intent' variant.

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 states when to use this tool (for clients without MCP Tasks support) and provides the complete workflow: submit, poll with url_scanner_async_task_status, then get result with url_scanner_async_task_result. This effectively guides against using the sync counterpart unless MCP Tasks is supported.

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 (formerly URLCheck). 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources