PatrolTech

Latest scans

patroltech_scans_list_recent

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when you want to see the most recent scans, with their guard, checkpoint and time. Returns scans with checkpoint, guard, time (UTC), validation (valid, pending review or rejected, with the reason) and suspicionReasons (empty when not suspicious): valid and suspicious are independent. Explain them only from those two fields. device and GPS distance come only when known. Items older than the data retention period come with their details hidden. With truncated: true the data is capped. Do not use when round totals are enough.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "patroltech_scans_list_recent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	End date of the range (inclusive), YYYY-MM-DD.
`from`	No	Start date of the range, YYYY-MM-DD (never words like "yesterday").
`guard`	No	Guard name: only their scans. Omit it unless asked.
`period`	No	Relative period. Use it when the user says "today", "yesterday", "last week", "last month" or similar.
`location`	No	Location name: only its scans. Omit it unless asked.
`checkpoint`	No	Checkpoint name: only its scans. Omit it unless asked.
`invalidOnly`	No	true: only the rejected (invalid) scans.
`organization`	No	Omit unless the account has more than one organization; then the exact name (or id) as listed by patroltech_account_get_context.
`suspiciousOnly`	No	true: only the scans flagged as suspicious.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive already covered by annotations, the description still adds substantial behavioral context: retention periods hide item details, `truncated: true` signals a capped result, `device` and GPS distance appear only when known, and valid vs suspicious are independent flags. It even instructs the agent to explain results only from those two fields, which guards against over-interpretation.

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 usage trigger and the return-shape details are front-loaded, and sentences are dense with non-redundant facts about output fields and edge cases. It is slightly long for what is essentially a list tool, and the retention/truncation sentences could be tightened, but no sentence is filler.

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?

There is no output schema and 9 optional parameters, so the description properly carries the return-value burden: field meanings, conditional fields, retention behavior, and truncation signaling are all covered. That is everything an agent needs to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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% and the schema already spells out every parameter, including the enum for `period`, the date pattern for `from`/`to`, and the 'omit unless asked' guidance on the filter fields. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('see the most recent scans') and enumerates the fields returned (guard, checkpoint, time), so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields. It gestures at a sibling distinction with 'Do not use when round totals are enough', but never names patroltech_scans_count_by_patroller, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

It gives both a positive trigger ('Use when you want to see the most recent scans') and an exclusion ('Do not use when round totals are enough'), which is more than most definitions offer. The alternative is only implied by outcome ('round totals') rather than named, leaving the agent to map that onto the count sibling.

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

All PatrolTech 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.