Skip to main content
Glama

Urlscan Io

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Submit

submit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Submit a new URL for scanning (requires key).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
tagsNo
countryNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 of scan country.
refererNo
useragentNo
visibilityNopublic (default) | unlisted | private
customagentNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiNoAPI version
urlNoThe URL that was submitted
uuidNoUnique identifier for the submitted scan
resultNoURL to retrieve the scan result
visibilityNoVisibility setting of the scan

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "url": "https://example.com"
+  },
+  {
+    "_apiKey": "your-urlscan-io-api-key",
+    "country": "US",
+    "tags": [
+      "phishing",
+      "test"
+    ],
+    "url": "https://suspicious-site.com",
+    "visibility": "private"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Response from submitting a URL for scanning",
+  "properties": {
+    "api": {
+      "description": "API version",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "description": "URL to retrieve the scan result",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "description": "The URL that was submitted",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "uuid": {
+      "description": "Unique identifier for the submitted scan",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "visibility": {
+      "description": "Visibility setting of the scan",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Description says 'Submit a new URL' which implies creating a new scan record, contradicting the annotation readOnlyHint: true indicating a read-only operation. This is a serious inconsistency.

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?

Description is very concise with one sentence. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters and low schema coverage, the description fails to provide essential context about authentication usage (e.g., how to provide the key) and parameter meanings. Output schema is present but not referenced.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 29% and the description adds no additional information about parameters beyond the schema. Several parameters like 'tags', 'referer', 'useragent', 'customagent' are left unexplained.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'Submit a new URL for scanning', which is specific and uses a verb-resource pair. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that may also involve scanning, such as 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' or 'scan_dependency'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Description mentions 'requires key' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or other scanning tools. Lack of context for usage decisions.

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

All Urlscan Io 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes with thorough descriptions, but there is meaningful overlap among ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all of which route questions to data sources. The multiple polymarket tools (edges, arbitrage, fill_risk, edge_tracker, kalshi_spread) also require careful reading to differentiate. The urlscan tools (domain, ip, search, submit, result) are distinct, but the overall set mixes several unrelated domains, increasing misselection risk.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of conventions: short urlscan verbs (domain, ip, search, submit), noun-first names (entity_profile, recent_changes, deep_research), verb_noun names (compare_entities, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt), and prefixed families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). There is no uniform verb_noun pattern or consistent prefix convention across the set. This inconsistency makes it hard to predict what a tool does from its name alone.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the set is far above the 3-15 range typical for a coherent server, even for a broad data API. The inclusion of meta-tools like discover_tools and suggest_questions suggests the count is so high that agents need help navigating it. The load is compounded by tools spanning urlscan.io, Pipeworx, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, making the server feel like a grab bag rather than a focused service.

Completeness3/5

The urlscan portion is complete for searching, submitting, and retrieving scan results, and the Pipeworx side covers a wide range of data and analysis capabilities. However, the server is named 'Urlscan Io' while most tools are unrelated to urlscan, creating a mismatch between the stated purpose and the actual surface. There are no obvious gaps for the included features, but the lack of a coherent domain makes it hard to assess what 'complete' means for this set.

Resources