DSGVO.pro — German Digital-Law Compliance

Get Scan Report

get-scan-result

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the full compliance report for a completed scan. Returns score (0–100), financial risk in EUR, per-module results, and all violations with law references, fine estimates, and fix instructions. ⚠️ Only call after the scan is complete — check status first with get-scan-status. If called while scan is still running, returns current progress instead of an error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scanId`	Yes	The scan ID returned by check-compliance

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`error`	No
`score`	No	Compliance score 0–100 (completed scans only)
`scanId`	No
`status`	No	initializing \| pending \| crawling \| scanning \| completed \| failed
`message`	No
`modules`	No
`riskLevel`	No
`startedAt`	No	ISO timestamp
`violations`	No
`completedAt`	No	ISO timestamp
`modulesTotal`	No
`scanReportUrl`	No	Human-readable report on dsgvo.pro
`modulesCompleted`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 21, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "completedAt": {
+      "description": "ISO timestamp",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "modules": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "maxScore": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "module": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "score": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "violationsCount": {
+            "type": "number"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "modulesCompleted": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "modulesTotal": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "riskLevel": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scanId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scanReportUrl": {
+      "description": "Human-readable report on dsgvo.pro",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "description": "Compliance score 0–100 (completed scans only)",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "startedAt": {
+      "description": "ISO timestamp",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "initializing | pending | crawling | scanning | completed | failed",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "violations": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "bussgeldrahmen": {
+            "properties": {
+              "amountEur": {
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "currency": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "paragraph": {
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": [
+              "object",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "fixSteps": {
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "fixSummary": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "law": {
+            "description": "Law and paragraph, e.g. \"BGB §356a\"",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "module": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "noBussgeldReason": {
+            "description": "Why no fine range applies, when bussgeldrahmen is null",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "severity": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds unique behavioral context not in annotations: the tool returns current progress if scan is still running instead of error, and it specifies the exact data elements returned. This adds value beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences plus a caution, front-loaded with the core action and result summary. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy. The warning is clearly marked with an emoji, and the fallback behavior is concisely explained.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description's summary of return contents suffices. It covers the full lifecycle context (when to call, what to expect) and even notes the non-error fallback. Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail every field. This is complete for its complexity.

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% for the single parameter scanId, which is described as 'The scan ID returned by check-compliance'. The description does not add any extra detail about the parameter itself, but it does provide context (completed scan) that indirectly relates to usage. Per rubric, with high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 states the exact purpose: to retrieve a full compliance report for a completed scan, and lists specific return contents (score, financial risk, per-module results, violations with law references and fixes). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get-scan-status (which checks status) and check-compliance (which initiates scans). No ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use it: only after the scan is complete, and instructs to check with get-scan-status first. Also explains the behavior if called early (returns current progress rather than error), effectively telling when not to use it and offering an alternative. This is exemplary guidance.

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

All DSGVO.pro — German Digital-Law Compliance 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.

Resources

Need Help?