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 (KosmetikVO + 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

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
`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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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 behavioral context by listing possible statuses and explaining that the tool returns module progress, which goes beyond annotation-only info. It also implies lightweight/poll-friendly behavior, though it does not discuss rate limits or edge cases.

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 first sentence is concise and the guidance is front-loaded, but the description includes a long parenthetical list of 13+ module names and legal references that adds no value for tool selection or invocation. This bloat makes the description significantly less concise than it should be.

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?

For a simple polling tool with one parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the key operational context: what statuses to expect, when to poll, and what to do next. It could mention failure behavior (e.g., scan not found) but that is not essential given the output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes scanId as returned by check-compliance. The description does not add further parameter-level detail (e.g., format, required conditions), so it relies on the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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?

States the specific verb ('check') and resource ('progress') of an in-progress compliance scan, clearly distinguishing it from get-scan-result (full report) and check-compliance (initiation). Mentions the returned status values and module count, making it unambiguous.

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 says 'Use this to poll progress' and instructs to call get-scan-result when status is 'completed'. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative for follow-up, effectively differentiating it from sibling tools.

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?