Skip to main content
Glama

Get my CyberLens scan summary

get_my_scan
Read-only

Retrieve status, score, and available test counts for one scan owned by the connected CyberLens account. A legacy repository record with a zero total and no assessed count has no reliable test count; do not say that zero tests ran. Does not expose raw findings, secrets, or database connection details.

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": {
      "scan_id": "<scan_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_my_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scan_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe closed-world read, so the description's marginal value is the boundary statement – no raw findings, secrets, or DB connection details – which is genuinely useful. The legacy zero-total caveat is data-interpretation guidance rather than tool behavior, and nothing is said about error behavior when the scan is absent or not owned by the account.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by two targeted caveats, no filler. The legacy-record sentence is slightly verbose but carries information an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers return fields and the secrecy boundary. It leaves error/not-found behavior and pagination-free return shape unaddressed, which is a visible gap for a lookup tool.

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 0%, so the single scan_id parameter relies on format/pattern alone in the schema. The description adds that the scan must be owned by the connected account, which is real meaning beyond the schema, but it omits what happens with an unknown or foreign scan_id.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) plus the exact resource and scope ('status, score, and available test counts for one scan owned by the connected CyberLens account'). The 'one scan' scoping makes it distinguishable from the sibling list_my_scans without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the single-scan lookup for a known scan_id. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. list_my_scans guidance and no stated prerequisite or fallback when the scan is missing.

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.

Resources