Retrieve the result of an asynchronous scan task. If completed, returns the full scan result (risk_score, confidence, agent_access_directive, etc.). If still running, returns status with retry_after_ms — call again after that interval. Non-blocking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The task ID to retrieve the result for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations: non-blocking, retry-after interval, and partial status when incomplete. It also lists example result fields, providing a clear picture of the tool's behavior.
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 well-structured sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague wording.
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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains both possible outcomes (completed vs. running), the retry mechanism, and example return fields. It is as complete as needed for an async result retrieval 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 fully documents the single parameter, task_id, with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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?
The description clearly states that the tool retrieves the result of an asynchronous scan task, with specifics on completed vs. running states. It distinguishes from the sibling 'url_scanner_async_task_status' by focusing on result retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
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 implied usage guidance: call again after retry_after_ms, and it is non-blocking. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like url_scanner_async_task_status or state when to use one over the other.
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.