Skip to main content
Glama

get_scan_status

Monitor the progress of active scans by retrieving real-time status updates using the scan ID, ensuring efficient scan management for Burpsuite projects.

Instructions

Check the status of a running scan

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scan_idYesID of the scan to check

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the get_scan_status tool logic, retrieving the scan status from the mockScans object and returning a JSON-formatted response with status details.
    case "get_scan_status": {
      const scanId = String(request.params.arguments?.scan_id);
    
      if (!scanId || !mockScans[scanId]) {
        throw new McpError(ErrorCode.InvalidRequest, `Scan ${scanId} not found`);
      }
    
      const scan = mockScans[scanId];
    
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: JSON.stringify({
            scan_id: scanId,
            target: scan.target,
            status: scan.status,
            progress: scan.progress,
            start_time: scan.startTime,
            end_time: scan.endTime,
            issue_count: scan.issues.length
          }, null, 2)
        }]
      };
    }
  • The input schema and description for the get_scan_status tool, defining the required scan_id parameter.
      name: "get_scan_status",
      description: "Check the status of a running scan",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          scan_id: {
            type: "string",
            description: "ID of the scan to check"
          }
        },
        required: ["scan_id"]
      }
    },
  • src/index.ts:379-482 (registration)
    The registration of available tools including get_scan_status in the ListToolsRequestSchema handler.
    server.setRequestHandler(ListToolsRequestSchema, async () => {
      return {
        tools: [
          {
            name: "start_scan",
            description: "Start a new vulnerability scan on a target URL",
            inputSchema: {
              type: "object",
              properties: {
                target: {
                  type: "string",
                  description: "Target URL to scan (e.g., https://example.com)"
                },
                scan_type: {
                  type: "string",
                  enum: ["passive", "active", "full"],
                  description: "Type of scan to perform"
                }
              },
              required: ["target"]
            }
          },
          {
            name: "get_scan_status",
            description: "Check the status of a running scan",
            inputSchema: {
              type: "object",
              properties: {
                scan_id: {
                  type: "string",
                  description: "ID of the scan to check"
                }
              },
              required: ["scan_id"]
            }
          },
          {
            name: "get_scan_issues",
            description: "Get vulnerability issues found in a scan",
            inputSchema: {
              type: "object",
              properties: {
                scan_id: {
                  type: "string",
                  description: "ID of the scan"
                },
                severity: {
                  type: "string",
                  enum: ["high", "medium", "low", "info", "all"],
                  description: "Filter issues by severity"
                }
              },
              required: ["scan_id"]
            }
          },
          {
            name: "get_proxy_history",
            description: "Get HTTP/HTTPS traffic captured by Burp Proxy",
            inputSchema: {
              type: "object",
              properties: {
                host: {
                  type: "string",
                  description: "Filter by host (optional)"
                },
                method: {
                  type: "string",
                  description: "Filter by HTTP method (optional)"
                },
                status_code: {
                  type: "number",
                  description: "Filter by HTTP status code (optional)"
                },
                limit: {
                  type: "number",
                  description: "Maximum number of items to return (default: 10)"
                }
              }
            }
          },
          {
            name: "get_site_map",
            description: "Get the site structure discovered during scanning and browsing",
            inputSchema: {
              type: "object",
              properties: {
                host: {
                  type: "string",
                  description: "Filter by host (optional)"
                },
                with_parameters: {
                  type: "boolean",
                  description: "Only show URLs with parameters (optional)"
                },
                limit: {
                  type: "number",
                  description: "Maximum number of items to return (default: 20)"
                }
              }
            }
          }
        ]
      };
    });
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 states this is a status check, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what the status includes (e.g., progress percentage, completion state, errors), whether it's real-time or cached, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of a scan status tool (which likely involves dynamic state), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., progress, errors, duration), how to interpret status values, or potential edge cases. For a tool that agents will rely on to monitor operations, more context is needed.

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%, with the single parameter 'scan_id' documented as 'ID of the scan to check'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Check') and target resource ('status of a running scan'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_scan_issues' or 'get_proxy_history', which would require more specific scope information, but it's unambiguous about what this tool does.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a scan must be started first using 'start_scan'), nor does it differentiate from siblings like 'get_scan_issues' (which might return detailed problems) or 'get_proxy_history' (which might track proxy usage). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

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/Cyreslab-AI/burpsuite-mcp-server'

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