Initiates a security scan by specifying target addresses or tag names to identify vulnerabilities.
Create a new scan.
Args:
target_addresses: List of target addresses to scan
tag_names: List of tag names to scan targets with these tags
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_addresses | No | ||
| tag_names | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create a new scan' without mentioning side effects, mutation, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on creation (e.g., immediate execution or scheduling).
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?
The description uses a docstring format with an 'Args:' block, which is structured but includes redundant text. It is reasonably concise but could be tightened to a single line without losing meaning.
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?
Given two optional parameters and no required fields, the description fails to explain behavior when both are null, how parameters interact, or what the scan entails. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged, and return value expectations are absent.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds brief explanations: 'List of target addresses to scan' and 'List of tag names to scan targets with these tags', which clarify the purpose beyond the schema titles. However, it lacks details on format, constraints, or mutual exclusivity.
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?
The description states 'Create a new scan' which clearly indicates the action and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'create_scan_schedule' or 'cancel_scan', leaving ambiguity about what a 'scan' specifically refers to.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or situations where other tools (e.g., create_scan_schedule) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/intruder-io/intruder-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server