get_public_reportRead the latest saved public scan report or bounded history using its opaque report id. Reports are only created after explicit opt-in and expire after 30 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| history | No | Return saved snapshots newest first instead of only the latest snapshot. | |
| report_id | Yes | Opaque report id returned by scan_url when publish_report is true. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it adds useful non-obvious facts: reports require explicit publisher opt-in, expire after 30 days, and 'history' returns a bounded set of saved snapshots. It does not mention error/expiry behavior or response format, but the stated lifecycle and read-only semantics are valuable.
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?
Two sentences deliver the what, how, the constraint, and the lifecycle without waste. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence explains a non-obvious condition for using returned reports.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what the id is, when reports exist, how long they are valid, and that history is optional. Minor gaps like pagination or exact error behavior are not disclosed, but the basics are complete enough for correct invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both report_id and history. The description only loosely reflects the history parameter ('latest' vs 'bounded history'), which does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('public scan report') plus the report id mechanism, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from scan_url by referencing 'report id returned by scan_url' and from fix-related siblings by focusing on public report retrieval.
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 gives clear usage context: report entries only exist after explicit opt-in and expire after 30 days, and the id is the one produced by scan_url. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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.
Most tools target clearly distinct artifacts: OpenAPI, A2A cards, crawler access, saved reports, and fix verification. The main ambiguity is between scan_url and get_fix_pack, since both scan a public URL and return fix-pack-related output, though scan_url emphasizes the full score/findings while get_fix_pack focuses on prioritized fixes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: audit_, check_, get_, scan_, validate_, verify_. The verbs are appropriate and the naming makes the intended action readable at a glance.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a URL and API readiness scanning server. Each tool addresses a distinct phase or artifact in the workflow: scanning, fix generation, fix verification, report retrieval, and specialized static audits.
The core lifecycle is covered: scan a URL, obtain fixes, verify fixes, and retrieve reports, plus specialized audits for OpenAPI, A2A, and crawler access. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to list or manage saved public reports and no explicit repository-connection tool, but these are workable.