Get TLS Details
get_tls_detailsRead-onlyIdempotent
Get TLS details for a scan_id.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_id | Yes |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
ScanMalware.com URL Scanner
TDQS
D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as permissions, rate limits, or data shape; it merely restates the read-only nature. No contradiction exists, but the value added beyond annotations is minimal.
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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It spends its single sentence restating the title and parameter, providing no useful structural information or context to earn its place.
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?
While the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description is too minimal to support correct selection among over a hundred sibling get_* tools. It does not clarify what 'TLS details' encompasses, making the tool ambiguous and incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter scan_id, and the tool description only repeats the parameter name without explaining its format, source, or relationship to other scan identifiers. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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 says 'Get TLS details' which is nearly identical to the title and uses the vague term 'details' without specifying what aspects of TLS are returned. It fails to distinguish the tool from sibling tools like get_tls_asn1, which likely has a more specific scope.
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 only usage guidance is the implicit requirement of a scan_id, but there is no discussion of when to choose this over other TLS-related or scan-related tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so an agent cannot decide between this and sibling tools.
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.