Get YARA By Scan
get_yara_by_scanRead-onlyIdempotent
Get YARA results 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
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as error handling, scan completion requirements, or return behavior. It only repeats the basic action without detailing edge cases or side effects.
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 a single, focused sentence that communicates the tool's purpose with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action 'Get YARA results' and is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'YARA results' encompasses and fails to connect this tool to other scan-related tools (e.g., get_malware_by_scan, get_scan_summary), making it slightly incomplete for effective use among many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for scan_id, and the description only says 'for a scan_id', which merely restates the parameter name. It does not explain the format, origin, or how it relates to other scan endpoints, failing to compensate for the lack of schema description.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('YARA results') scoped by scan_id. It is specific and easily understood, and the name 'get_yara_by_scan' further clarifies it is per-scan. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar YARA-related tools like get_yara_matches or get_yara_stats, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools with similar scopes (e.g., get_yara_matches, get_yara_stats, get_recent_yara_threats), but no mention of which one to choose in which scenario, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
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.