scan_urlFetch and scan a public HTTPS page and its static WebMCP metadata through the account API. Maximum 100,000 UTF-8 bytes of prepared content. Returns public jobs; poll get_scan for results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public HTTPS page URL to fetch and scan. | |
| config | No | Optional Patronus scan configuration overrides. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / config / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional Patronus scan configuration overrides."Input schema / properties / url / descriptionAdded value: +"Public HTTPS page URL to fetch and scan."Output 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"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the 100,000 UTF-8 byte limit and the asynchronous job pattern (returns public jobs, poll get_scan). These go beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then delivers the key constraint (byte limit) and the follow-up action (poll get_scan), earning every word.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and constraints. It does not explain 'prepared content' or config overrides in depth, but these are minor given the schema's 100% coverage and the presence of an output schema.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides; the reference to 'prepared content' is not clearly tied to a parameter.
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 states a specific verb ('Fetch and scan') and a specific resource ('public HTTPS page'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_file, scan_server, and scan_text. The mention of 'static WebMCP metadata' further narrows the purpose.
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 clearly implies the intended use case (public HTTPS pages) and explicitly directs the agent to poll get_scan for results, providing actionable follow-up guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.