Skip to main content
Glama

SecurityScan

by net.apisecurityscan

network_scan

Active security scan of a device or host with an autonomous AI agent that decides which follow-up probes to run (ActiveScanner). Only scan targets you own or have permission to test.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesIP, CIDR, or hostname. Examples: "192.168.1.1", "10.0.0.0/24"
scan_typeNo"quick" (~30s, top ports) [default], "standard" (~2min, agent loop), "deep" (~10min, full ports + credentials check)quick
authorizedYesREQUIRED. You must set this to True to certify that you own the target or have explicit permission to test it. Setting it to False (or omitting it) aborts the scan. Scanning without authorization may be illegal (CFAA / Computer Misuse Act).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully reveals that the scan is active, that an autonomous AI agent decides follow-up probes, and that only authorized targets should be scanned. This provides useful transparency beyond the literal parameter names, even if potential side effects like generated traffic or triggering alerts are not mentioned.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, adds the defining autonomous behavior in the same sentence, and closes with a necessary legal/safety caveat. Every part earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the presence of output schema, full parameter schema coverage, and the description's inclusion of purpose, autonomy, and authorization, the definition is nearly complete. The main minor gap is not explicitly explaining when to use this scan tool instead of sibling security-scanner tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not need to restate parameter meanings; the schema already documents target, scan_type, and authorized. The parenthetical ActiveScanner context indirectly supports the scan_type parameter but does not add essential missing semantics.

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 states a specific purpose: performing an active security scan of a device or host, with an autonomous AI agent deciding follow-up probes. It clearly identifies the target resource and the operational concept, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like scan_secrets or scan_skill.

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?

The description implies this tool is for active network scanning and firmly imposes an authorization prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be chosen over alternatives, nor does it mention which sibling tools would be better for non-network security checks.

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

All SecurityScan 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct scan types (MCP config, dependencies, skills, network, secrets), but full_stack_audit deliberately overlaps with five of them, creating ambiguity about whether to call the umbrella tool or a focused scanner. The descriptions mitigate this by clarifying scope, but the redundant surface makes selection less crisp.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly descriptive and action-oriented, but they mix conventions: scan_secrets and scan_skill use a verb_noun pattern, audit_mcp_server_config and check_dependencies use different verbs, network_scan and full_stack_audit are non-verb phrases, and securityscan_checkout/securityscan_pricing use a brand prefix. This is readable but not a consistent, predictable pattern.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for its security-scanning purpose. Each focused tool covers a meaningful threat surface, and full_stack_audit adds value as a correlation layer rather than pure bloat.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the core security lifecycle for an agent environment: configuration auditing, dependency health, skill vetting, network scanning, and secret/PII redaction, plus a full-stack correlation option. Minor gaps exist around remediation actions and persistent scan history, but these are not clearly required by the server's stated purpose.

Resources