Malicious Scanner MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| API_KEY | Yes | API key for authenticating with the Malicious Scanner API |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| scan_urlC | Real time, Fully Scan one URL for any malicious content, including Spam/Gray classification and additional flags like domain age, and more |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool 'scan_url' has a clearly defined and distinct purpose, making it impossible for an agent to misselect between multiple options.
Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'scan_url' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, and there are no other tools to compare it against, so no inconsistencies can arise.
A single tool is generally too few for most server purposes, as it limits functionality and may indicate an incomplete or overly narrow scope. For a malicious scanner, one tool might suffice for basic scanning, but it lacks coverage for related operations like batch scanning, result management, or configuration adjustments.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a malicious scanner domain. While 'scan_url' covers the core scanning function, there are obvious gaps such as scanning multiple URLs, retrieving scan history, managing whitelists/blacklists, or configuring scan parameters, which could lead to agent failures in more complex tasks.