BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner

check_http_security

Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit browser-facing HTTP security headers over HTTPS: Content-Security-Policy (unsafe-inline/unsafe-eval/wildcards), X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy and COOP/COEP/CORP; also detects CDN/WAF interception. Returns per-header findings for missing or weak protection against XSS, clickjacking and cross-origin attacks. Part of the scan_domain audit.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "check_http_security"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	Domain, e.g. example.com
`format`	No	Output verbosity.
`force_refresh`	No	Bypass the cache.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`score`	Yes
`passed`	Yes
`partial`	No
`category`	Yes
`findings`	Yes
`checkStatus`	No
`verdictWithheld`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 12, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / domain / description

Previous value: -"Domain to check (e.g., example.com)"New value: +"Domain, e.g. example.com"

changedInput schema / properties / force_refresh / description

Previous value: -"Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes."New value: +"Bypass the cache."

changedInput schema / properties / format / description

Previous value: -"Output verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted."New value: +"Output verbosity."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 25, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 5, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / verdictWithheld
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
Changed2 schema fields changedAug 18, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / checkStatus
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / partial
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedJul 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / force_refresh

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedMay 26, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "category": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "findings": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "properties": {},
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "passed": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "category",
+    "score",
+    "passed",
+    "findings"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedApr 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it reports per-header findings for missing or weak protection, flags specific CSP weaknesses (unsafe-inline/unsafe-eval/wildcards), and warns that CDN/WAF interception is detected — which materially affects how an agent should interpret results. It does not explain caching or what force_refresh changes, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the header list, then the return summary and the scan_domain relationship. Dense but every clause carries information; the semicolon-chained header enumeration is slightly list-heavy but not wasteful.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only, three-parameter check with an output schema present, the description covers scope, what is inspected, what findings look like, and the CDN/WAF caveat. Missing only cache/refresh semantics and any note that the target must serve HTTPS, which are minor against an existing output schema and full annotation coverage.

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%, so domain, format and force_refresh are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no note on accepted domain forms, no guidance on when compact vs full is appropriate, no cache TTL context for force_refresh). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden.

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?

Names a specific verb (Audit) and resource (browser-facing HTTP security headers over HTTPS), then enumerates the exact headers inspected (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy, COOP/COEP/CORP). The closing phrase 'Part of the scan_domain audit' plus the header focus separates it cleanly from check_ssl and the DNS/TLS siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the header-focused scope and 'Part of the scan_domain audit' tell an agent this is a sub-check of a broader domain audit. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that a live HTTPS endpoint is required), and no named alternative for TLS/certificate concerns such as check_ssl.

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

All BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.