YourAITools MCP Hub

InjectScan: Prompt-injection scan: web page

scan_url

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches a public web page and scans its visible text plus hidden HTML (comments, hidden elements, alt/aria/meta text) for prompt injection before your agent browses or summarizes it. Respects robots.txt; refuses private hosts. Returns risk_score (0-100), verdict (safe | suspicious | malicious), findings[] with location (visible or hidden), finalUrl, title and hidden_html stats. Free: 30 calls/day per IP shared with scan_text and scan_tools. Not for: text you already have (use scan_text) or MCP tool definitions (use scan_tools). A safety signal, not a guarantee.

[InjectScan via YourAITools MCP Hub] Free tier: same as InjectScan's own MCP server (call without payment and without tier). Paid: scan $0.003 per call, with a credits key (Authorization: Bearer yatc_...) or x402 (USDC; the hub returns the payment terms). Failed tool calls aren't charged: credits are refunded automatically and x402 payments only settle on success.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "scan_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Absolute http:// or https:// URL of a public web page, e.g. "https://example.com/post". Private, loopback and internal hosts are refused; robots.txt is respected.
`text`	No	(paid calls only)
`tier`	No	Paid tier: scan $0.003. Omit tier (with no credits key or x402 payment) to use the free tier.
`tools`	No	(paid calls only)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 30, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / url / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "https://example.com/"
+]
```
Changed2 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / tools / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```
- removedInput schema / properties / tools / items / properties / inputSchema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / tools / items / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +true
```

addedInput schema / properties / tools / items / description

Added value: +"A tool definition: name, description and inputSchema (MCP tools/list or OpenAI/Anthropic shape)."

addedInput schema / properties / tools / items / properties

Added value: +{
+  "description": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "inputSchema": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "description": "JSON Schema of the tool input.",
+    "properties": {
+      "type": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "name": {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover safety profile (read-only, open-world, idempotent), but the description adds things they cannot: robots.txt compliance, refusal of private/loopback hosts, the free-tier quota of 30 calls/day shared across three sibling tools, and the refund/no-settlement rule for failed paid calls. It also names the returned fields.

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?

The core sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful specifics, followed by a tight exclusions clause. The trailing hub/pricing boilerplate is longer than needed and partly duplicates what the schema's tier/credits semantics already say.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates risk_score, verdict, findings[] with location, finalUrl, title and hidden_html stats, plus access constraints and rate limits. The only gap is leaving the unexpected `text`/`tools` inputs unexplained for an otherwise URL-only operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no clarification for the puzzling `text` and `tools` properties on a URL-scanning tool — a caller cannot tell from the description why those exist or whether to pass them; only the schema's '(paid calls only)' hint exists.

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 concrete verb+resource chain (fetches a public web page, scans visible text plus hidden HTML for prompt injection) and enumerates which surfaces are inspected (comments, hidden elements, alt/aria/meta). The purpose is unmistakable against siblings like read_url or audit_website.

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?

Gives an explicit use context (before your agent browses or summarizes) and an explicit 'Not for' clause naming both alternatives with their selection conditions (scan_text for text you already have, scan_tools for MCP tool definitions). Also adds the honest caveat that it is a safety signal, not a guarantee.

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

All YourAITools MCP Hub tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?