Skip to main content
Glama

sectora

by io.github.megabrainee

scan_url

Kick off a DAST security scan against a public URL the API key owner controls. Two-step flow: first call returns a preview (target, profile, ETA, quota remaining); confirm by calling again with confirm:true to actually start the scan. Returns scan_id; poll status with get_scan. Domain must be verified in the Sectora account. Daily quota: 25 scans/24h per user. Requires API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFull URL to scan (must start with http:// or https://)
confirmNoSet to "true" to actually execute the scan. Without this, the call returns a preview only.
profileNoScan profile: quick (~2 min), standard (~10 min), deep (~30 min)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-step flow, return of scan_id, need to poll with get_scan, domain verification, daily quota, and API key requirement. Missing details about error states or rate limits beyond quota, but covers key behavioral traits.

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 concise with four sentences, front-loading the purpose and proceeding in logical order. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and the tool's complexity (two-step mutation), the description explains the flow, preconditions, constraints, and post-invocation steps (polling). Lacks details on error handling but is otherwise comprehensive for an agent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for confirm (two-step flow) and profile (preview includes profile), but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

The description explicitly states the tool initiates a DAST security scan, specifying the verb "Kick off" and the resource "DAST security scan". It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_scan or list_my_scans by focusing on starting scans, not polling or listing.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: a two-step flow with preview and confirmation, domain verification requirement, and daily quota. It hints at alternatives (poll status with get_scan) but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare to other siblings.

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

All sectora toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but 'lookup_cve' and 'get_weaponization_score' both focus on a single CVE, which could cause confusion. However, descriptions clarify their different outputs (full enrichment vs. numerical score).

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use 'get_', others 'list_', 'lookup_', 'assess_', 'scan_url', 'search_cves'. No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range, covering a broad scope of security assessment and intelligence without being excessive.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows (scanning, vulnerability lookup, threat stats) are covered, but missing update/delete operations for scans and domain verification tool. Notable gaps exist but core functionality is present.

Resources