URL Scanner Online by Aprensec — URL & Domain Security Scanner
Server Details
Scan any URL, domain, or IP address for security threats using URLScanner.online. Returns a full security report including: Threat verdict (safe / suspicious / malicious) and 0–100 security score Threat intelligence across 70+ feeds (malware, phishing, blocklists) SSL certificate validity, expiry, issuer, and OCSP status HTTP security headers audit (missing / misconfigured) DNS records (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, SOA) And More! Free to use. No account required. 10 scans/day
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: scan_url initiates a new security scan, while get_scan retrieves results for an existing scan ID. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity in selection.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (scan_url, get_scan) using snake_case. The action verbs clearly indicate initiation vs. retrieval, establishing a predictable naming convention.
With only 2 tools, this falls into the 'borderline thin' category per the rubric. While it covers the absolute minimum submit-and-retrieve workflow, the lack of auxiliary operations (list scans, check rate limits) makes the surface feel sparse for managing the stated 10-scan daily quota.
The CRUD surface is minimal: only Create (scan) and Read (get result) are supported. Notable gaps include the inability to list recent scans (relevant given 1-hour retention), check remaining rate limit quota, or cancel in-progress scans—operations agents would need to avoid burning the strict 10-scan daily allowance.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_scanAInspect
Retrieve the result of a previously submitted URL scan by its scan ID. Use this when scan_url times out, to poll an in-progress scan, or to re-fetch a recent result. Scans are retained for approximately 1 hour.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_id | Yes | The scan ID returned by scan_url (e.g. '3f4a1b2c-...') |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully adds 'Scans are retained for approximately 1 hour' (data retention policy) and implies async/polling behavior. Could be improved by noting error behavior (e.g., 404 for expired scan_id), but the retention limit is valuable 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with zero waste: first establishes purpose, second provides usage conditions, third states data retention. Front-loaded with the most critical information (retrieve result) and logically sequenced. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is materially complete. It covers purpose, usage timing, sibling relationship, and data lifecycle (1 hour retention). Minor gap regarding error cases or return format, but adequate for this complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (scan_id is fully documented in schema with reference to scan_url). The description mentions 'by its scan ID' but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema's explanation. With complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Retrieve the result of a previously submitted URL scan by its scan ID'—specific verb (retrieve), resource (scan result), and scope (by ID). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool scan_url by positioning itself as the retrieval counterpart to submission.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Excellent explicit guidance: 'Use this when scan_url times out, to poll an in-progress scan, or to re-fetch a recent result.' Names the sibling tool (scan_url) and provides three distinct temporal scenarios for usage vs. alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
scan_urlAInspect
Perform a full security scan on a URL, domain, or IP address using URLScanner.online. Returns a detailed security report including:
Threat intelligence (malware, phishing, blocklist hits)
SSL certificate validity, expiry, and chain
HTTP security headers audit
DNS records (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, SOA)
WHOIS registration data
Redirect chain analysis
Security score 0–100 and verdict (safe/suspicious/malicious)
Use this tool to: check if a link is safe before clicking, investigate phishing URLs, audit website security posture, or gather reconnaissance on a domain.
Rate limit: 10 scans per day per IP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL, domain, or IP to scan. Examples: 'https://suspicious-site.xyz', 'example.com', '185.220.101.1' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and succeeds admirably. It explicitly states the rate limit constraint ('10 scans per day per IP'), details the complete output structure (seven specific data categories including threat intel, SSL, DNS, WHOIS), and discloses the scoring mechanism (0-100 security score with verdicts).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description follows an optimal structure: functional declaration, output introduction, detailed bullet points for scan components, use case enumeration, and rate limit constraint. Every sentence earns its place; the bullet list is information-dense and necessary given the lack of an output schema, with no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description provides exceptional contextual completeness by extensively detailing return values (threat intelligence categories, certificate data, DNS records types), scoring mechanisms, and operational constraints (rate limits) that structured fields omit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'url' parameter, documenting accepted formats (URL, domain, IP) with concrete examples. The main description reinforces this polymorphic input capability but does not add additional semantic constraints, validation rules, or format requirements beyond the schema's documentation, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states what the tool does: 'Perform a full security scan on a URL, domain, or IP address using URLScanner.online.' This provides a specific action (scan), target resource (URL/domain/IP), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_scan' by emphasizing the scanning action versus retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a dedicated 'Use this tool to:' section listing specific scenarios: checking link safety, investigating phishing, auditing security posture, and domain reconnaissance. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or contrast with sibling 'get_scan' (presumably for retrieving cached results).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail — every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control — enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management — store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts — get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption — public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics — see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback — users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!