Get Safe Browsing Stats
get_safe_browsing_statsRead-onlyIdempotent
Get safe browsing stats.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
ScanMalware.com URL Scanner
TDQS
C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already convey. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description doesn't mention what data is returned, whether results are time-bounded, or any other operational traits. With no extra information, the description contributes nothing beyond the schema's safety signals.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It simply restates the tool name without earning its place by adding useful information. A concise description should pack meaning into few words; this one conveys no new information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and complete annotations, the description is too thin to provide adequate context. It doesn't explain what 'safe browsing stats' refers to (e.g., URL reputation counts, threat categories), making the tool less discoverable and understandable. The output schema may list return fields, but the description fails to orient the agent to the tool's purpose and context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuous), and there is no parameter ambiguity for the agent to resolve. The description adds nothing about parameters, but it isn't required for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get safe browsing stats' is a direct restatement of the tool name and title, providing no additional scope or differentiation from sibling tools. It does not specify what kind of stats are included or how they are aggregated, making it tautological rather than a clear purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. With over 100 sibling tools including other stats endpoints like get_analyzer_stats and get_domain_stats, the agent receives no context about when safe browsing stats are relevant or how they differ from get_safe_browsing.
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.
TDQS
C2.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools overlap in purpose, particularly the JS fingerprint search functions (e.g., search_js_fingerprint_by_md5 and search_jsfingerprints_by_md5) which are nearly identical. The large number of get_* and search_* tools for various statistics also creates boundary ambiguity.
Naming Consistency2/5
The verb_noun pattern is mostly followed, but there are significant inconsistencies: 'jsfingerprints' vs 'js_fingerprints' vs 'js_fingerprint', and the occasional use of 'find' instead of 'search' (e.g., find_js_fingerprint_similar_by_hash). This mixed style makes it hard to predict tool names.
Tool Count1/5
With 128 tools, the server is severely over-scoped. Many tools could be combined (e.g., all search_jsfingerprints_by_* variants) or parameterized. The sheer number overwhelms an agent and suggests poor API design.
Completeness4/5
The core URL scanning workflow (submit, retrieve results, search, analyze) is well covered, including detailed sub-analyses like malware, YARA, and JS fingerprints. Minor gaps include no scan cancellation or user-specific scan listing, but overall coverage is strong.