Skip to main content
Glama

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

by ai.intodns

scan_csp

Read-onlyIdempotent

Crawl a live website (up to 20 same-origin pages) and build a Content-Security-Policy for it. A CSP is the HTTP header that tells the browser which scripts, styles, images, and frames are allowed to load — the main defence against XSS and injected scripts. This scan reads the site's current CSP (header, report-only, or meta tag), flags problems a beginner might miss (no CSP at all, unsafe-inline, wildcard sources, missing object-src/base-uri/frame-ancestors), and inventories every external origin the site actually loads per directive. Returns: the detected current policy with issues, the per-directive origin inventory, a generated ready-to-deploy CSP in both report-only form (safe to roll out first) and enforce form, plus plain-language notes explaining each directive choice. Use this when the user asks to audit, analyze, or create a Content-Security-Policy for a real site, fix CSP console errors, or harden a site against XSS; use generate_security_headers for a generic best-practice header set without crawling. Slow: the crawl typically takes 30-45 seconds, so set expectations before calling. Rate-limited to 3 scans per 10 minutes per IP; repeat scans of the same origin within 10 minutes return the cached result instantly. Read-only — nothing on the site is changed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe public website URL to crawl, e.g. https://example.com
strictNoGenerate a stricter policy (fewer broad allowances)

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it reads the current CSP from header/report-only/meta tags, inventories external origins, is rate-limited to 3 scans per 10 minutes, caches results for 10 minutes, typically takes 30-45 seconds, and explicitly states nothing is changed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 detailed but every sentence adds value: purpose, output contents, use cases, alternatives, performance expectations, rate limits, and read-only confirmation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what will be returned: detected current policy with issues, per-directive origin inventory, generated report-only and enforce CSPs, and plain-language notes. It also covers constraints, caching, rate limits, and safety, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents url and strict. The description adds useful context for url (same-origin crawl up to 20 pages, cache behavior) but does not add significant meaning for the strict parameter beyond the schema's 'fewer broad allowances'.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Crawl a live website... and build a Content-Security-Policy for it.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by naming generate_security_headers as the generic no-crawl alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when the user asks to audit, analyze, or create a Content-Security-Policy for a real site, fix CSP console errors, or harden a site against XSS; use generate_security_headers for a generic best-practice header set without crawling.' This states both when to use and when not to use.

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

All IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, and cross-references between tools (e.g., check_spf vs check_email_security vs check_sender_requirements) explicitly state when to use each one. Overlapping behaviors are carefully delineated (e.g., scan_domain vs get_everything_report vs start_deep_scan) with latency and depth tradeoffs explained. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_*, generate_*, get_*, create_*, scan_*), with precise verbs matching each action. Minor deviations include 'nis2_quickscan' (no verb) and a few compound names like 'whois_lookup', but these are isolated. The variety of verbs is semantically justified by the broad domain, so the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 45 tools, this is far beyond the 16-25 'heavy' range and nearly double the 25 threshold. While the server covers a wide range of DNS, email, and web checks, a 45-tool surface is likely to overwhelm agents and increase selection errors. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., individual check_* tools into one combined check) without sacrificing clarity.

Completeness5/5

The tool set meticulously covers the domain: DNS (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, DNSSEC, propagation, whois), email security (blacklist, FCrDNS, MTA-STS, SMTP TLS, TLSA, BIMI, raw email analysis, test sessions), web security (headers, CSP, HTTP/3), reporting (PDF, snapshots, badges), and compliance (NIS2, Internet.nl deep scans). There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of DNS & email security scanning; every check has a corresponding generator or explainer.

Resources