Skip to main content
Glama

Readiness scorer — can an agent sign up to your SaaS?

readiness_get_scan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Step 3. Poll a scan by id. While status is queued/running only metadata is returned; when done you get the 0-100 score, grade, per-item rubric points with evidence, the fix list, and what could not be observed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "readiness_get_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesscan id returned by readiness_request_scan

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds genuinely non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot express: results are state-dependent, returning only metadata while queued/running and the full score, grade, rubric points, fix list, and unobservable items only when done. This staged-return disclosure is the most valuable part of the description, though poll cadence and timeout behavior remain unstated.

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?

Two tight sentences with the workflow position front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence efficiently enumerates the return payload without padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by describing both the intermediate and terminal payloads. A small gap remains around polling mechanics (frequency, terminal-state detection), but the core information an agent needs is present.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains that 'id' is the scan id returned by readiness_request_scan. The description's 'by id' adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Poll a scan by id') and positions itself as 'Step 3' in a multi-step flow. It distinguishes itself from readiness_request_scan by implication (polling an existing scan rather than starting one), though it never names the sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Step 3' marker implies this comes after requesting a scan, but the description never states when to call it, how often to poll, or when to stop. Usage is inferable rather than stated, and no alternatives or exclusions are given.

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.