Skip to main content
Glama

ContrastAPI

by com.contrastcyber

Redirect Chain

redirect_chain
Read-onlyIdempotent

Walk an HTTP redirect chain hop-by-hop, returning per-hop {url, status_code, location, latency_ms}. Use to deobfuscate URL shorteners (bit.ly / t.co / lnkd.in), audit suspicious links from phishing investigations, or trace marketing tracking redirects. SSRF-guarded: each redirect target's resolved IP is re-validated before connecting (private IPs and non-HTTP schemes rejected). Up to 10 hops; loop_detected=true if a hop would revisit a previously-seen URL (we abort before the duplicate fetch); truncated=true if the chain still had a 30x at hop 10. Per-target eTLD+1 throttle (60 req/min) consumed once for the start host AND once per new host reached — a chain across 11 unrelated domains cannot bypass the cap. Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr. Returns {start_url, final_url, hops, hop_count, final_status, loop_detected, truncated, summary}. Returns 502 ErrorResponse on hard fetch failure (timeout / TLS / connect); 429 with Retry-After if a hop's eTLD+1 throttle is exceeded mid-chain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFull URL whose redirect chain to walk, e.g. 'https://bit.ly/3xyz' or 'http://example.com/old-path'. Must start with http:// or https://. Pass the URL exactly as you'd `curl -L` it; the server handles encoding.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses extensive behavioral traits: SSRF-guarded target validation, 10-hop limit, loop_detected flag, truncated flag, per-target eTLD+1 throttle, rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr Pro), and specific error responses (502, 429 with Retry-After). This goes well beyond the annotations which only specify readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive flags.

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 dense but every sentence contributes concrete information—behavioral constraints, rate limits, return fields, and error cases. It is well-structured with the main action first, followed by use cases and edge-case details, though it is long.

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?

The description is complete for a network analysis tool: it covers return fields, edge cases (loop, truncation), safety mechanisms (SSRF guard), rate limits, and error responses. Given the rich annotations and output schema, no critical context is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides a thorough description for `url`, giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds extra practical guidance ('Pass the URL exactly as you'd curl -L it'), enhancing the schema without redundancy. This warrants a 4 rather than the baseline 3.

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 object ('Walk an HTTP redirect chain hop-by-hop') and details use cases (URL shortener deobfuscation, phishing investigations) that clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like DNS lookup or IP lookup.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly states when to use the tool with three concrete scenarios (bit.ly/t.co/lnkd.in deobfuscation, phishing link audit, marketing tracking). However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All ContrastAPI 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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with differences between lookup/search/scan/audit for each domain. However, some overlap exists (e.g., email_mx vs email_security_posture, scan_headers vs contrast_scan) which could cause occasional confusion. Overall, boundaries are well-defined.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., cve_lookup, check_headers, bulk_cve_lookup) with all lowercase underscores. Variations like kev_detail or ssl_check are minor and still predictable. No chaotic mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

54 tools is high but justified by the broad cybersecurity scope (CVE, ATLAS, D3FEND, Sigma, domain, email, IOC, scanning). Some redundancy exists (e.g., three email-related tools), but the count is not excessive given the API's comprehensive feature set.

Completeness5/5

The tool set thoroughly covers the threat intelligence and domain investigation lifecycle: CVE/KEV/exploit/CWE, ATLAS/D3FEND/Sigma, DNS/WHOIS/SSL/subdomains, email security, IOC enrichment, and active scanning. No significant gaps are apparent for the stated cybersecurity purpose.

Resources