Skip to main content
Glama
threat-zone

Threat.Zone MCP Server

by threat-zone

scan_url

Analyze URLs for threats and malicious content to identify potential security risks before accessing suspicious links.

Instructions

Analyze a URL for threats and malicious content.

Args: url: The URL to analyze is_public: Whether the scan results should be public

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
is_publicNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The 'scan_url' tool handler function. Registered via @app.tool decorator. Takes a URL and optional is_public flag, sends POST request to ThreatZone API /public-api/scan/url endpoint, returns the API response.
    @app.tool
    async def scan_url(url: str, is_public: bool = False) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Analyze a URL for threats and malicious content.
        
        Args:
            url: The URL to analyze
            is_public: Whether the scan results should be public
        """
        data = {
            "url": url,
            "isPublic": is_public
        }
        return await get_client().post("/public-api/scan/url", data=data)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'is_public' parameter affecting result visibility, which adds some context, but fails to describe critical behaviors like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, error conditions, or what constitutes 'threats and malicious content' in the analysis results.

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 description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are brief but clear. However, the formatting with 'Args:' heading could be slightly more polished, and the second sentence about parameters might benefit from integration with the main description.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, for a threat analysis tool with security implications, it should better explain what analysis entails, result interpretation, and usage boundaries. The output schema reduces need for return value details, but behavioral context remains incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic semantic meaning for both parameters ('url: The URL to analyze' and 'is_public: Whether the scan results should be public'), which adds value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain URL format requirements, what 'public' means in practice, or default behavior when is_public is unspecified.

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 tool's purpose: 'Analyze a URL for threats and malicious content.' This specifies the verb ('analyze'), resource ('URL'), and objective ('threats and malicious content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scan_file_sandbox' or 'search_by_hash', which perform similar threat analysis on different resources.

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 sibling tools like 'scan_file_sandbox' for file analysis or 'get_submission' for retrieving existing scan results, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for URL scanning versus other threat analysis methods.

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

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/threat-zone/threatzonemcp'

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