Skip to main content
Glama

dns

by com.blackveilsecurity

check_http_security

Read-onlyIdempotent

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to check (e.g., example.com)
formatNoOutput verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted.
force_refreshNoBypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scoreYes
passedYes
partialNo
categoryYes
findingsYes
checkStatusNo

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing what headers are inspected, what issues are flagged (e.g., unsafe-inline, weak X-Frame-Options), and detection of CDN/WAF interception. No contradictions.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph of 4-5 sentences. It front-loads the core purpose ('Audit a domain's browser-facing HTTP security headers') and then lists specifics. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers what headers are checked, what vulnerabilities are flagged, and mentions CDN/WAF detection. Combined with annotations, it provides sufficient context for a security audit tool.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add new parameter-level context beyond the overall purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool audits HTTP security headers, listing specific headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, etc.) and their purposes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_ssl (SSL/TLS) and check_dmarc (email) by focusing on browser-facing HTTP security.

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?

The description implies usage for assessing HTTP security headers but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_ssl or scan_domain. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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

All dns 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that help differentiate overlapping areas (e.g., check_dane vs check_dane_https). However, there are sets of similar tools (brand audit, OSINT, polling) that could cause confusion if descriptions are not carefully read.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is mostly readable but inconsistent: many check_* tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but there are also noun_verb names (scan_domain, cymru_asn), bare verbs (generate), and varied patterns for async operations (discover_brand_domains_start vs discover_brand_domains).

Tool Count2/5

With 80 tools, the server feels overstuffed. It covers multiple domains (DNS, email, brand, OSINT, M365) that could benefit from separation. The high number includes many polling/status tools that add overhead.

Completeness3/5

The server covers core DNS and email security checks thoroughly, including many edge cases (e.g., BIMI, MTA-STS, subdomain takeover). However, there are gaps like lack of direct DNS record management and some OSINT tools are restricted to operator deployment, leaving agents with dead ends.

Resources