Dechonet-MCP

OWASP Security Checkup

owasp_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess a domain's OWASP posture from EXTERNAL OBSERVATION only: the OWASP Secure Headers Project plus the externally observable Top 10 subset — A02 Cryptographic Failures (TLS/cert), A05 Security Misconfiguration (header/info leaks), and A06 Vulnerable & Outdated Components (version disclosure) — returning an A+ to F grade. Scope: A01 (Access Control), A03 (Injection), A04, A07 (Authentication), A08, A09 and A10 (SSRF) are not checked — they need authenticated access or active/injection testing, so the result lists them as out-of-scope rather than "pass". Present the result as an external-posture check, not a full OWASP Top 10 assessment. Unlike security_scan this is PASSIVE (a normal HTTPS request, the TLS certificate and a public CT-log lookup; no port scan, no path probing), so it is suitable for domains you do not own. The sensitive-file check (.env, .git, server-status) runs only for the verified domain owner on the web report (DNS TXT), never through this tool. Use http_security or ssl_check for depth on one layer. Read-only; requires no API key; rate-limited. Returns a text report: grade, per-category findings, the out-of-scope list, and a shareable report link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes	Hostname to assess, without scheme (e.g., 'example.com'). The host portion of a pasted URL is also accepted.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`grade`	Yes	OWASP posture grade A+ to F, over the observable categories only
`score`	Yes	0-100 across the categories that could be evaluated
`checks`	Yes	Per observable category: Secure Headers, A02, A05, A06
`reportUrl`	Yes	Human-facing interactive report on dechonet.com
`notObservable`	No	Top 10 categories NOT checked (need authenticated/active testing)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: passive HTTPS + cert + CT-log lookup, no API key, rate-limited, the sensitive-file check deliberately excluded for non-owners, and the text-report return with a shareable link. That is substantial context beyond the annotations.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with scope stated before caveats and alternatives. Slightly long, and the external-posture caveat is essentially restated twice (scope list plus 'present as external-posture check'), costing a bit of economy.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return details needn't be re-explained, yet it still summarizes the report contents. Scope boundaries, safety profile, and alternatives are all present, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the host format. The description reinforces the input contract by stressing external observation against a host, but adds no additional syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states.

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 (assess a domain's OWASP posture) and immediately scopes it to external observation, enumerating the covered categories (A02, A05, A06) and the excluded ones. An agent can distinguish it from security_scan, http_security and ssl_check without opening any 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?

Explicit when-to-use (passive, unowned domains, no port scan/path probing), when-not (A01/A03/A04/A07/A08/A09/A10 out of scope), and names alternatives (http_security, ssl_check for depth, and contrasts with security_scan). Nothing is left to inference.

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?