Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Bannerproof

by app.bannerproof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Scan history

scan_history
Read-only

Score and issue count over time for a domain monitored in the account (newest first, up to 30).

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_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesA domain monitored in the connected account

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: results are newest first, capped at 30, and contain score and issue count over time. It does not discuss permissions or behavior when no scans exist, but the key output ordering and limit are disclosed.

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 definition is a single focused sentence with the core purpose and result shape front-loaded. There is no redundant or wasted phrasing.

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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned, the ordering, and the limit. Minor gaps such as empty-history behavior or exact timestamp format remain, but they are not critical for correct invocation.

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 only parameter is already documented as 'A domain monitored in the connected account'. The description repeats this constraint but adds no additional syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific resource and result: score and issue count over time for a monitored domain. It implies a historical read rather than a fresh scan, which helps distinguish it from scan_domain or audit_domain, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'over time' and 'monitored in the account', suggesting it is for retrieving past scan trends rather than triggering new scans. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as get_findings or audit_domain.

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