Dechonet-MCP

HTTP Security Headers Audit

http_security

Read-onlyIdempotent

Follow a URL's HTTP redirect chain and audit response security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, COOP, CORP, COEP, Permissions-Policy), grading A+ to F on the six core headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy; COOP/CORP/COEP are reported but not graded) and flagging information leaks such as server-version disclosure. Use this for HTTP-layer/header posture. Use ssl_check instead for certificate or TLS-handshake issues, or security_scan for a full domain report. Read-only (an HTTP GET-style probe that sends no payload); requires no API key; rate-limited. Returns a text report: grade, header findings, redirect trace, issues, and actions.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Full URL including scheme (e.g., 'https://example.com/path'). If the scheme is omitted, https:// is assumed. Redirects are followed starting from this URL.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kpis`	No	Key metrics as label/value pairs
`grade`	No	Letter grade (A+ to F) when the tool grades the target
`score`	No	0-100 score when the tool scores the target
`issues`	No	Detected problems, severity-rated
`status`	Yes	Overall verdict, e.g. 'good' \| 'warning' \| 'bad' \| 'info' \| 'unknown'
`actions`	No	Recommended next actions, most important first
`summary`	No	One-paragraph interpretation of the result
`receipts`	No	Signed observation receipts behind this result, one per lookup: when, from where and under which rules version DechoNet observed it. Each url shows the record and checks its Ed25519 signature.
`reportUrl`	Yes	Human-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com
`observation`	No	How much was actually observed and when. A partial observation means some checks did not answer: missing parts are not verified, never clean.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / receipts

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Signed observation receipts behind this result, one per lookup: when, from where and under which rules version DechoNet observed it. Each url shows the record and checks its Ed25519 signature.",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "id": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "tool": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "url": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "tool",
+      "id",
+      "url"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / observation

Added value: +{
+  "description": "How much was actually observed and when. A partial observation means some checks did not answer: missing parts are not verified, never clean.",
+  "properties": {
+    "ageMinutes": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "cached": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "observedAt": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "state": {
+      "enum": [
+        "complete",
+        "partial",
+        "unknown"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds value beyond them: it specifies the probe is a GET-style request that sends no payload, requires no API key, is rate-limited, and returns a text report with grade, findings, redirect trace, issues and actions. It also discloses grading scope (COOP/CORP/COEP reported but not graded).

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then grading rules, then sibling routing, then behavioral caveats, then return shape. No sentence is redundant; every clause carries operational information.

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?

Complete for a single-parameter read-only audit tool: safety profile, prerequisites, rate limits, grading criteria, routing to alternatives, and return contents are all covered, and an output schema exists to carry the exact return structure.

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% and the single url parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the https:// default and redirect-following behavior. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (follow a URL's redirect chain and audit response security headers), enumerates exactly which headers are graded versus merely reported, and names the siblings it is not (ssl_check, security_scan). An agent can distinguish it from every other tool in the list without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly scopes itself ('Use this for HTTP-layer/header posture') and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them: ssl_check for certificate/TLS-handshake issues, security_scan for a full domain report. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated.

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

All Dechonet-MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?