DSGVO.pro — German Digital-Law Compliance

Check Scan Progress

get-scan-status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lightweight progress check for an in-progress compliance scan. Returns current status (pending/crawling/scanning/completed/failed) and how many modules have finished (20 Standard or up to 33 with Pro/Agency tier including Hosting-Standort (Schrems II) (Art. 13 lit. f DSGVO), Widerrufsbutton (§356a BGB), KI-Transparenz (Art. 50 KI-VO), Tech-Stack-Aktualität (Art. 32 DSGVO), Anwaltsspezifische Prüfung (BORA / BRAO), Maklerspezifische Prüfung (§34c GewO + MaBV + GEG), Arztspezifische Prüfung (BOÄ + HWG + Art. 9 DSGVO), Finanzvermittler-Prüfung (§34d/f/h/i GewO + FinVermV), Gastronomie-Prüfung (LMIV + PAngV + IfSG), Kosmetik-Prüfung (KosmetikV + HWG + UWG), Bau-/Sanierung-Prüfung (§34c GewO + HwO + MiLoG), Hotel-/Beherbergung-Prüfung (BMG + PAngV + GEG + DSGVO)). Use this to poll progress. When status is 'completed', call get-scan-result for the full report.

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`error`	No
`ready`	No	true once the scan is completed or failed
`scanId`	No
`status`	No	initializing \| pending \| crawling \| scanning \| completed \| failed
`message`	No
`startedAt`	No	ISO timestamp
`modulesTotal`	No
`modulesRunning`	No
`modulesCompleted`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 21, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "modulesCompleted": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "modulesRunning": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "modulesTotal": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "ready": {
+      "description": "true once the scan is completed or failed",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "scanId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "startedAt": {
+      "description": "ISO timestamp",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "initializing | pending | crawling | scanning | completed | failed",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by listing the possible status values and describing the polling workflow, though it does not add rate-limit or retry guidance.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The useful content is front-loaded in the first and last sentences, but the middle is bloated with a long parenthetical enumeration of 33 compliance modules and legal citations. That level of detail is excessive for a tool definition and does not help an agent select or invoke the tool.

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?

With rich annotations, an output schema, and one fully described parameter, the description is complete for this tool's purpose. It explains the polling use case, the returned status values, and the transition to get-scan-result, so an agent has everything needed to use it correctly.

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 single scanId parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from check-compliance. The description does not add any additional meaning or formatting details for scanId, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: a lightweight progress check for an in-progress compliance scan. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling get-scan-result by explaining that get-scan-result should be called only once the status is completed.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool to poll progress and routes the agent to get-scan-result for the full report when status is completed. The scope is also constrained to in-progress scans, which implies when the tool is appropriate.

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

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?