list_scan_profilesList the security scan profiles configured for the active project. A scan profile bundles the target spec/environment and the enabled scanners; its public ID is required by run_security_scan. Pass scanProfileId to get one profile with its full configuration instead. Requires project context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scanProfileId | No | Public Id (Guid) of a single scan profile. When given, returns it in full. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, using verbs like 'List' and 'get' that indicate a read-only operation. It adds transparency by mentioning the dependency on project context and the effect of the optional parameter, without any implication of side effects or destructive behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two focused sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides background on scan profiles and the optional parameter behavior. Information is front-loaded and no extraneous detail is included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the tool's purpose, the nature of the resource, the relationship to a dependent tool (run_security_scan), the alternative behavior with the parameter, and the required project context. No output schema is provided, but no additional context is necessary for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter has a clear description noting it is a public ID (Guid) and that when supplied it returns a single profile in full. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema type and default value, helping the agent understand the input's purpose and impact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool lists security scan profiles for the active project, names the specific resource type and action, and clarifies that passing an optional ID retrieves a single profile in full. It clearly distinguishes from related tools like list_scan_runs by focusing on profiles rather than runs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides practical usage guidance by explaining that the public ID from a profile is required by run_security_scan, and by noting the alternative behavior when scanProfileId is passed. It also states the prerequisite of active project context. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling list tools such as list_scan_runs, so guidance on when not to use it is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.
With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.