Skip to main content
Glama

start_scan

Initiate vulnerability scans on target URLs using specified scan types (passive, active, full) via Burpsuite MCP Server to identify security issues.

Instructions

Start a new vulnerability scan on a target URL

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scan_typeNoType of scan to perform
targetYesTarget URL to scan (e.g., https://example.com)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler logic for the 'start_scan' tool. It extracts target URL and scan_type from arguments, validates target, generates a unique scan ID, initializes a mock Scan object, stores it in mockScans, sets a 5-second timeout to simulate scan completion by generating mock issues based on scan_type, and returns the scan_id and initial status.
    case "start_scan": {
      const target = String(request.params.arguments?.target);
      const scanType = String(request.params.arguments?.scan_type || "passive");
    
      if (!target) {
        throw new McpError(ErrorCode.InvalidParams, "Target URL is required");
      }
    
      // Create a new scan
      const scanId = `scan-${Date.now()}`;
      const scan: Scan = {
        id: scanId,
        target,
        status: "running",
        startTime: new Date().toISOString(),
        progress: 0,
        issues: []
      };
    
      mockScans[scanId] = scan;
    
      // Simulate scan completion after a delay (in a real implementation, this would be async)
      setTimeout(() => {
        const issueCount = scanType === "passive" ? 3 : scanType === "active" ? 8 : 15;
        mockScans[scanId].issues = generateMockIssues(new URL(target).hostname, issueCount);
        mockScans[scanId].status = "completed";
        mockScans[scanId].endTime = new Date().toISOString();
        mockScans[scanId].progress = 100;
      }, 5000);
    
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: JSON.stringify({
            scan_id: scanId,
            message: `Started ${scanType} scan on ${target}`,
            status: "running"
          }, null, 2)
        }]
      };
    }
  • Input schema definition for the 'start_scan' tool, specifying a required 'target' string and optional 'scan_type' enum.
    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"]
    }
  • src/index.ts:382-400 (registration)
    The tool registration entry in the ListTools handler, including name, description, and input schema for 'start_scan'.
    {
      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"]
      }
    },
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 the action ('Start a new vulnerability scan') but lacks details on execution traits, such as whether it's asynchronous, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens upon invocation (e.g., scan initiation vs. immediate results). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand 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 starting a vulnerability scan (a mutation operation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects like what the tool returns (e.g., a scan ID), error conditions, or behavioral implications, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 clear documentation for both parameters (scan_type with enum values and target with examples). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining scan_type differences or target format nuances, so 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 ('Start a new vulnerability scan') and the target ('on a target URL'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_scan_status' or 'get_scan_issues', which are related but not direct alternatives for initiating scans.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a target URL, or clarify its role relative to sibling tools like 'get_can_status' for monitoring scans. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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