Patronus Security

Scan a document

scan_file

Use the same document scan as the website. Submit one TXT, Markdown, HTML, PDF or DOCX file up to 10 MB; the extracted canonical text is limited to 100,000 bytes. Returns public jobs; poll get_scan for results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Original filename with a TXT, Markdown, HTML, PDF or DOCX extension.
`data_base64`	Yes	Document bytes encoded as standard padded base64.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / data_base64 / description

Added value: +"Document bytes encoded as standard padded base64."

addedInput schema / properties / name / description

Added value: +"Original filename with a TXT, Markdown, HTML, PDF or DOCX extension."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "Patronus scan response or public scan job envelope.",
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the 10 MB file limit, the 100,000-byte canonical text cap, the fact that results are public jobs, and the need to poll get_scan. These details help the agent understand side effects and expectations, though it does not mention authentication or what happens if limits are exceeded.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the tool's purpose and then packs the key constraints and follow-up action into the second sentence, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the small schema, full parameter documentation, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential calling context: input type, size limits, result type, and next step. It is slightly incomplete only in not clarifying how this file-based scan compares to the other scan siblings.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces file-type constraints but does not add meaningfully new details about the individual name or data_base64 parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Submit') on a specific resource (a document file) and lists the accepted formats, size limit, and output behavior. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like scan_text, scan_url, or scan_server, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific variant is preferred.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this tool is for local file scanning by mentioning supported file extensions and size limits, and it correctly points to get_scan for polling results. However, it does not state when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives such as scan_text or scan_url, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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

All Patronus Security 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?