ScanMalware.com URL Scanner

Submit Scan

submit_scan

Submit a URL to ScanMalware to be rendered and analysed in a sandboxed browser; returns the new scan_id. scan_type is required and sets who can see the result: 'public' lists the URL and its results in the public feed, visible to anyone and to search engines; 'unlisted' keeps the scan out of public listings, but anyone with its link can open it; 'private' limits the result to the ScanMalware account of this server's SCANMALWARE_BEARER_TOKEN and is rejected when no token is configured. Wraps POST /api/v1/scan of the ScanMalware API, documented at https://scanmalware.com/api-docs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`options`	No
`scan_type`	Yes
`user_agent`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 7, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / scan_type / default
```
Removed value: -"public"
```
- changedInput schema / required
```
Previous value: -[
-  "url"
-]New value: +[
+  "url",
+  "scan_type"
+]
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 2, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / scan_type / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "public",
+  "unlisted",
+  "private"
+]
```
First observedJan 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds genuinely new context: visibility semantics per scan_type, the SCANMALWARE_BEARER_TOKEN auth dependency, and the underlying POST /api/v1/scan endpoint. It omits rate limits or duplicate-submission behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the return value before the scan_type detail, and the trailing API-reference sentence is short and useful. The middle sentence is dense but every clause carries new information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description correctly stops at naming scan_id. Combined with the scan_type semantics and auth note, an agent has enough to invoke correctly; only the undocumented 'options' and 'user_agent' parameters leave a residual gap.

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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It fully covers scan_type (all three enum values with implications) and implies url, but says nothing about 'options' or 'user_agent', leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 specific verb and resource ('Submit a URL... to be rendered and analysed in a sandboxed browser') and names the returned artifact ('returns the new scan_id'). This clearly distinguishes it from the entire read-oriented sibling set (get_*/search_*), which consume scans rather than create them.

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?

Explicitly explains the scan_type choice space and the consequences of each value, including a when-not condition ('private' is rejected when no token is configured). It does not, however, route the agent to follow-up siblings such as wait_for_scan or get_scan_result, so the workflow context is only implied.

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

All ScanMalware.com URL Scanner tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.