Skip to main content
Glama

Urlscan Io

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "url": "https://example.com"
-  },
-  {
-    "_apiKey": "your-urlscan-io-api-key",
-    "country": "US",
-    "tags": [
-      "phishing",
-      "test"
-    ],
-    "url": "https://suspicious-site.com",
-    "visibility": "private"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "url": "https://example.com"
+  },
+  {
+    "country": "US",
+    "tags": [
+      "phishing",
+      "test"
+    ],
+    "url": "https://suspicious-site.com",
+    "visibility": "private"
+  }
+]
  2. 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"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but 'Submit a new URL for scanning' implies creating a scanning job, which is a side-effecting action. This is an annotation contradiction. The description also does not disclose rate limits, authentication details beyond 'requires key', or side effects.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse for an agent to call the tool confidently: five parameters are unexplained, there is no usage routing, and the behavioral profile is contradicted by annotations.

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 description coverage is only 29%, with country and visibility described in the schema but url, tags, referer, useragent, and customagent left undocumented. The description only adds 'new URL' and 'requires key', which does not explain the optional parameters or their expected formats.

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?

The description names the action ('Submit'), the object ('a new URL'), and the purpose ('for scanning'), making the tool's basic function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling scanning tools like scan_dependency or result, so it misses the top score.

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?

The only usage-related information is 'requires key', which is a prerequisite rather than guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of when to use submit versus other scanning-related siblings, nor any exclusions.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources