Skip to main content
Glama

Run a fresh scan

scan_domain

Runs a fresh scan of a domain monitored in the connected account (e.g. to check a fix). Waits up to about 40 seconds; if the scan is still running it returns a job_id for get_scan_status. A manual scan can be run once every 15 minutes per domain.

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": "scan_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesA domain monitored in the connected account, 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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the ~40 second wait, the asynchronous job_id fallback, and the 15-minute throttle per domain.

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?

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by timing/async behavior and the rate limit. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description explains the timeout/job_id return path and the rate limit. It omits what a completed scan returns, which is a minor but real gap for invocation planning.

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%, so the domain and language parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the domain must be monitored in the connected account but adds no syntax or semantic detail for language.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: runs a fresh scan of a domain monitored in the connected account, with an example use case. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like audit_domain or quick_check, though it names get_scan_status for the async fallback.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear usage context ('e.g. to check a fix'), describes the 40-second wait and job_id fallback to get_scan_status, and states the 15-minute-per-domain limit. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over quick_check or audit_domain.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.