KernelScan

request_access

Explain how to get a KernelScan account (no API key needed).

    Self-registration is open — there is no invitation to wait for and no
    admin in the loop. The user signs up on kernelscan.io themselves (email
    + password, accepting the terms), confirms the verification mail, and
    mints a ks_live_ API key on their account page.

    This tool only hands that path back: it files nothing and sends no
    mail. ``email`` / ``name`` / ``reason`` are still accepted so older
    clients don't break, but they are ignored — never tell the user that a
    request was submitted on their behalf.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 18, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / email / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / email / default
```
Added value: +null
```
- removedInput schema / properties / email / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```
- removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "email"
-]
```
First observedJun 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool has no side effects ('files nothing and sends no mail'), that the parameters are ignored ('they are ignored'), and instructs the agent to never mislead the user about a request submission. This goes well beyond the minimal schema and provides essential behavioral context.

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 well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then explains the self-registration process, and closes with the critical behavioral caveat about parameters and no-op behavior. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff. The most important information (that parameters are ignored) is front-loaded in the latter part but still prominent.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple informational tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the exact process a user follows, the tool's no-op behavior, and the role of parameters. An agent can call this tool correctly without needing any additional information.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly states that `email`, `name`, and `reason` are accepted only for backward compatibility and are ignored. This is the only relevant semantic information about these parameters, and it is fully provided, so the description fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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's purpose: to explain how to get a KernelScan account via self-registration. It uses a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('how to get a KernelScan account'), and its focus on account registration distinguishes it from all sibling tools (products, CVEs, support reports). The phrase 'This tool only hands that path back' reinforces the exact scope.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when a user needs an account and no admin is involved. It explicitly states what it does NOT do ('files nothing and sends no mail') and warns against claiming a request was submitted, effectively telling the agent this is informational only, not a submission tool. It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, but the behavioral guidance makes the usage boundaries clear.

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

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

Need Help?