KernelScan

request_access

Request an invitation to KernelScan from inside MCP (no API key needed).

    Use this when a keyless caller wants the full service. It records an
    invitation request and emails a confirmation; an admin reviews it and,
    if approved, sends an invitation code. This tool does NOT create an
    account or mint an API key — you finish signup (including accepting the
    terms) on the website after you receive the invitation.

    ``email`` is required. ``name`` and ``reason`` are optional context for
    the reviewer. The response is identical whether or not the email is
    already known, so it never reveals account state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`email`	Yes
`reason`	No

Schema Changelog

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

First observedJun 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key behaviors: records request, emails confirmation, admin review, no account creation, response does not reveal account state. Minor gaps: no details on failure modes or rate limits.

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?

The description is well-structured with an opening purpose statement, a paragraph on usage and limitations, and a parameter section. It is moderately sized without unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and basic behavior but lacks details on what the tool returns (no output schema) and error handling. This is a gap given no output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that email is required and name/reason are optional context for the reviewer, and that response is identical regardless of email being known. Could add format or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool requests an invitation to KernelScan, uses a specific verb-resource pair, and is distinct from sibling tools which deal with products, CVEs, and support.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('keyless caller wants full service') and what it does NOT do (no account creation or API key minting), but does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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

All KernelScan tools Inspect

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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: product lifecycle (create/get/list/update), CVE lookup/search, VEX retrieval, access request, support submission, and identity/quota check. There is no overlap; even create_product and update_product are clearly differentiated by their operation semantics.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_product, get_cve, list_products, etc.) using lowercase with underscores. The only outlier is whoami, which is a standard Unix-style command and fits naturally.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well-scoped for the domain of Linux kernel security scanning and CVE/product management. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or bloat, covering the core workflows without overwhelming the agent.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the major lifecycle for products (create, get, list, update) and CVEs (search, get), plus VEX retrieval and account context. Minor gaps exist such as product deletion or direct config upload, but these can be worked around via existing tools and the REST API.

Resources

Need Help?