Check the status of an asynchronous scan task. Returns the current task status using native MCP task semantics (working, completed, failed, cancelled) without blocking. Use url_scanner_async_task_result to retrieve the result once completed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The task ID to check status for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the native MCP task semantics (working, completed, failed, cancelled) and the non-blocking behavior. This goes beyond the annotation baseline, though it does not cover error handling or polling details, so a 4 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a concise pointer to the sibling tool. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 is simple, and the description covers purpose, semantics, and alternative tool usage. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by listing the possible status values. Minor omissions include how the task_id is obtained (implied by sibling async scan tools) and any error conditions, but these are not critical for this straightforward 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter (task_id) already described as 'The task ID to check status for.' The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is correct.
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's function: 'Check the status of an asynchronous scan task.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('status'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling result-retrieval tool by mentioning 'Use url_scanner_async_task_result to retrieve the result once completed.' This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from the other async tools.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to check status without blocking. It also names the alternative (url_scanner_async_task_result) for retrieving results after completion, making the usage context and decision boundary clear.
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.