Skip to main content
Glama
BACH-AI-Tools

Malicious Scanner MCP Server

by BACH-AI-Tools
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    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.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    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.

    Tool Count2/5

    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.

    Completeness2/5

    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.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real time' (implying speed) and 'fully scan' (suggesting comprehensiveness), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'malicious content' entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

    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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key actions ('scan', 'classify') and details. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured by separating core functionality from additional features for clarity.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values (e.g., scan results format), error cases, or operational constraints like rate limits. For a security scanning tool, this omission is significant and reduces usability.

    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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the URL is scanned for threats, which the schema's example already suggests. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

    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 clearly states the tool's purpose: scanning a URL for malicious content with specific categories (Spam/Gray classification) and additional flags (domain age). It uses specific verbs ('scan', 'classify') and identifies the resource (URL), but lacks sibling tools for differentiation, preventing a perfect score.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It mentions 'real time' and 'fully scan' but does not specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate, leaving usage decisions unclear.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

bachai-malicious-scanner MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

bachai-malicious-scanner MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/bachai-malicious-scanner'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server