SyteCheck MCP Server

List past scans

list_scans

Read-only

List this account's scans, newest first. Use it to find a scan id, or to check whether a site has been scanned before starting a new one.

Instructions

List this account's scans, newest first. Use it to find a scan id, or to check whether a site has been scanned before starting a new one.

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_scans"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	1-based page number.
`query`	No	Filter by URL or label substring.
`status`	No	Filter by scan status.
`page_size`	No	Results per page (max 100).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 13, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / page / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
First observedv0.1.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ordering ('newest first') and account scoping, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination defaults or result volume beyond what the schema documents.

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?

Two tight sentences with the ordering constraint front-loaded and the practical uses immediately after. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

With no output schema, the description implies the return content by mentioning finding a 'scan id'. For a simple four-param, zero-required listing tool whose annotations cover safety, that is nearly complete, though it could note that results are paginated.

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 page, page_size, query and the status enum are all self-documenting. The description adds no syntax or filtering guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List this account's scans') plus the ordering ('newest first'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the single-scan sibling get_scan_report. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases: locating a scan id and checking whether a site has already been scanned before starting a new one (implicitly routing to run_scan). Clear context, though no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives by name.

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

Deploy Server