Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Bannerproof

by app.bannerproof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Full findings with fixes

get_findings
Read-only

Full findings of the latest scan of a domain: which trackers and third-party requests fired before consent or kept running after 'Reject', the cookie banner's reject option, Google Consent Mode v2 signals, what happens after 'Accept', IAB TCF consent after Reject, Global Privacy Control, and a concrete fix and legal reference for each issue. Works for domains monitored in the account and for sites audited with audit_domain(s). For one finding in more depth use explain_finding.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "get_findings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe domain, e.g. example.com
languageNoLanguage for the fix instructions and report links: en, de, fr, es, it, nl, da, sv, fi, no, et, pl or pt. Normally the language of the conversation. Default en.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is settled; the description adds real context on the payload (banner reject behavior, Consent Mode v2, TCF, GPC, per-issue fixes with legal citations) and clarifies it always reflects the *latest* scan and works on both monitored and audited domains. It does not disclose what happens when a domain has no scan yet, so the error path stays opaque.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the routing alternative sits at the end where it belongs. The middle sentence is a long comma-chained inventory of finding types that is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what it will get back.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With only two parameters, no output schema, and readOnly already annotated, the description covers purpose, scope, payload contents, and alternatives. The remaining gap is failure behavior for a domain that was never scanned or is outside the account.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the language parameter's allowed values and default are fully documented in the schema. The description only implies the domain argument ('of a domain') and says nothing about language affecting fix instructions, so it adds little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full findings of the latest scan of a domain') and then enumerates exactly what those findings contain: pre/post-consent trackers, banner reject option, Consent Mode v2, IAB TCF, GPC, fixes and legal references. That enumeration makes it unmistakable versus siblings like get_evidence or get_quick_check_result.

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?

Explicitly scopes applicability ('Works for domains monitored in the account and for sites audited with audit_domain(s)') and routes the agent to the right alternative with the selecting condition ('For one finding in more depth use explain_finding'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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

All Bannerproof toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources