List and filter recent GuardBee security scans in your workspace by status, brand, or page to track scan progress and review results.
List recent GuardBee scans in your workspace
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default: 1) | |
| status | No | Filter by scan status | |
| brandId | No | Filter by brand ID | |
| pageSize | No | Results per page (default: 20, max: 50) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about auth/workspace permissions, ordering, pagination limits, or how many scans are returned by default. Only the vague 'recent' hint and the workspace scope constraint are conveyed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is close to under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four optional filter/pagination params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should clarify return shape, default ordering, and how paging behaves. It omits all of this, leaving the agent to infer pagination semantics from the schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with all four params (page, pageSize, status, brandId) documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra semantics such as default time window, sort order, or how status/brandId filters combine.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('List recent GuardBee scans') with workspace scoping, which distinguishes it from the scan-producing siblings like start_scan and scan_and_report. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_scan_status or get_findings, so the boundary with those read siblings is left implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus vulnerability_scanner__get_scan_status or get_findings, and no mention of what to do if the list is paginated or empty. The word 'recent' implies a default ordering but nothing tells the agent how to widen scope or page through results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.