Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
scanner-mcp

scanner-mcp

by AminHA1248
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_scanners

Read-only

List all reachable scanners from your machine, including network and USB devices. Provides scanner IDs and details for use with the scan_document tool.

Instructions

List all scanners reachable from this machine.

Discovers network scanners over mDNS (eSCL/AirScan) and local USB scanners via the platform driver stack (WIA on Windows, SANE on Linux/macOS). Returns a JSON array of scanners with their id (pass this to scan_document), name, backend, connection type and supported sources.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_scanners"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: discovery methods, platform-specific drivers, and return fields. No destructive behavior is indicated, and there is no contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two paragraphs, front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more concise, but it is well-structured and provides necessary technical details without redundancy.

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?

Given zero parameters and an output schema (indicated present), the description covers the tool's purpose, discovery methods, and return format. It references the sibling tool 'scan_document', making the context complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not need to add parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool lists all reachable scanners, specifies discovery methods (mDNS, USB), and describes the return format. It distinguishes from sibling 'scan_document' by mentioning the returned 'id' field for use with that tool.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implicitly indicates when to use: before scanning with 'scan_document'. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient given the sibling tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools