Skip to main content
Glama
competlab

competlab-mcp-server

by competlab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_trust_signals_scan

Read-only

Retrieve trust-signal scan status or full results by scan ID. Returns per-signal and tier verdicts; poll every 5-10 seconds until complete.

Instructions

Retrieve status or full results of a trust-signals scan by scanId. Returns current status while running, per-signal verdicts and tier verdict when complete. Roughly 1% of sites run behavioral protection that hides their response headers from us. Those results carry headerInspection: { available: false }. Read that as a note about the fetch, NOT as a caveat on the numbers: the page body was read in full, all 34 rules read the body and none reads headers, so the scan is complete and its tier, score, category scores and meta.signalsEvaluated are exact. Report them exactly as you would any other scan, and do not describe them as partial, provisional, or a minimum. The only thing the marker rules out is an evidence entry with kind: 'header'. Separately, a null in verdict, categoryScores, signalsDetected, suspiciousPatterns, gapsVsBenchmark or meta.signalsEvaluated means the page was never inspected at all — that only occurs on scans stored before this behavior shipped (results persist 24h). Report a null as no result; never as a low score, a minimal tier, or 'no trust signals found'. An empty ARRAY is the opposite and IS a finding: we read the page and found none in that category. Recommended poll interval: 5-10 seconds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scanIdYesScan ID (from start_trust_signals_scan)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv4.0.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Addedv1.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the real behavioral load and does so richly: it explains the headerInspection {available: false} case, instructs that it is a fetch note and not a caveat, and defines null-vs-empty-array semantics so results are not misreported. This is exactly the kind of interpretation guidance the annotations cannot provide.

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 purpose and return behavior are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by the caveats that earn their place given the absence of an output schema. The headerInspection/null passages are dense but each carries distinct, necessary interpretation rules rather than padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description steps in to define the ambiguous result states (headerInspection marker, null fields, empty arrays) and the polling cadence, giving an agent everything needed to call and correctly report the scan. Nothing material is left unexplained.

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% (the single scanId param is documented, including its origin and pattern), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 for fully-covered parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve status or full results of a trust-signals scan') and names the keying parameter (scanId). It clearly pairs with the sibling start_trust_signals_scan and distinguises itself by covering retrieval/polling rather than initiation.

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?

The description establishes the retrieval context ('current status while running', full results when complete) and gives a concrete polling cadence (5-10 seconds), which tells an agent how to use it as an async-poll tool. It stops short of explicitly naming start_trust_signals_scan as the prerequisite/alternative in the description body (only the schema does), and lists no when-not conditions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools