Skip to main content
Glama

ScanLabsAI Security Scanner

by com.scanlabsai

compliance_report

Generate a website compliance report — the same automated assessment the ScanLabsAI agency portal runs — covering GDPR/CCPA privacy, WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility, PCI DSS 4.0 payment security and general standards. Returns an overall score, per-category scores and the failing/at-risk checks with recommendations, as Markdown. Requires a ScanLabsAI API key in the connection; costs 1 AI credit per report. Only run against sites you are authorised to assess.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe website URL to assess for compliance, e.g. https://example.com

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API key requirement, credit cost, Markdown output format, and authorization constraint. It does not mention potential side effects or rate limits, but for a report-generation tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 description is concise yet complete, covering scope, output, cost, and usage constraint in a few sentences. Each sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the purpose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers the standards assessed, the output format and categories, the API key requirement, the credit cost, and authorization. Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, this is a thorough and self-contained description.

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% and the description adds no extra parameter details beyond the schema's URL description. The tool's single parameter is well-defined in the schema, so the description provides minimal additional semantic value.

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?

The description clearly states the tool generates a website compliance report covering specific standards (GDPR/CCPA, WCAG 2.1 AA, PCI DSS 4.0). This is a specific verb+resource+scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_website or scan_agent by focusing on compliance assessment.

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?

The description provides clear context: it's for compliance reporting, requires an API key, costs credits, and should only be used on authorized sites. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it compared to sibling tools like scan_website.

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

All ScanLabsAI Security Scanner toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct: billing, scanning websites, scanning AI agents, CVE lookup, and remediation guidance all serve clear separate purposes. The main overlap is between compliance_report and scan_website, both assessing sites but from different angles; however descriptions clarify the distinction.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (buy_credits, check_credits, get_fix_guidance, get_pricing, lookup_cves, scan_agent, scan_website). 'compliance_report' is a noun phrase rather than a verb action, slight deviation but not confusing.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well-scoped for a security scanning service. Each tool covers a necessary function: billing, pricing, scanning, compliance, CVE lookup, and remediation guidance, without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The surface provides core lifecycle coverage for the domain: scanning (web and AI agent), compliance assessment, vulnerability intelligence, fix guidance, and credit management. Minor gaps exist like scan history or saved reports, but the tools handle real-time needs without dead ends.

Resources