Exposes FEDLIN's public security scanners as agent-callable tools over Streamable HTTP.
Scored across 4 tools
The three scan_* tools target mostly distinct surfaces (DNS/TLS/email auth, HTTP headers, post-quantum key exchange), and get_agent_exposure_scanner is clearly a different, local-agent resource. However, scan_domain_trust already covers TLS and certificates, so it overlaps meaningfully with scan_post_quantum's TLS key-exchange check, which could cause misselection.
Three tools follow a clean scan_<target> pattern (domain_trust, post_quantum, security_headers) that is readable and predictable. The outlier get_agent_exposure_scanner uses a different verb+longer noun phrase, though the differing verb (get vs scan) arguably reflects its different action.
Four focused tools suit a niche security-scanning server and each has a clear purpose. It is on the thinner side, but nothing feels redundant or padded.
The surface covers the major external attack-surface checks: DNS/email auth, TLS/certs, security headers, and post-quantum readiness. The gap is that get_agent_exposure_scanner only returns install instructions rather than performing a scan, leaving that workflow a partial dead end for an automated agent.
Get the free FEDLIN Agent Exposure Scanner: a local, read-only tool that finds where AI agents on your machine can reach sensitive data (health and personal identifiers) and secrets. Returns install and run instructions. The scan runs entirely on your machine; nothing sensitive leaves it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it declares 'local, read-only', states the return is 'install and run instructions', and reassures that 'nothing sensitive leaves it'. It stops short of stating whether the tool itself performs any scan or mutates system state, which is the main remaining ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, zero waste, and the most decision-relevant facts (what it is, what it returns, that it is local/safe) are front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from structured fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it is, what it returns, and its safety profile. Minor gaps remain around whether authentication or network access is required, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics to add beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get the free FEDLIN Agent Exposure Scanner') and explains what the scanner does. It implies a distinction from the sibling scan_* tools by framing this as a local, on-machine tool that returns install instructions rather than performing a remote scan, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the description of what the scanner covers ('where AI agents on your machine can reach sensitive data'), so an agent can infer when it is relevant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to scan_domain_trust, scan_post_quantum, or scan_security_headers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Audit a domain's DNS, TLS, certificates, and email authentication (SPF/DKIM/DMARC/DNSSEC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | A bare public hostname to scan, for example example.com. No scheme, path, or port; IP literals and internal hostnames are rejected. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Audit' vaguely suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, return format, network behavior, timeout considerations, or any permissions required. It only lists what is audited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one efficient, front-loaded sentence that lists all key areas. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the high-level scope, which helps the agent understand what the tool does. However, with no output schema and no behavioral guidance, it leaves uncertainty about what the tool returns (e.g., a report, a score, a pass/fail) and how the scan behaves, especially given it covers multiple complex areas.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the single 'domain' parameter, including format and validation rules. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles it adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Audit' and clearly enumerates the resource and scope: a domain's DNS, TLS, certificates, and email authentication. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming these concrete audit areas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by the description — one would use this to audit domain trust-related security properties. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over scan_post_quantum or scan_security_headers, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check whether a domain's TLS is using post-quantum (hybrid ML-KEM) key exchange.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | A bare public hostname to scan, for example example.com. No scheme, path, or port; IP literals and internal hostnames are rejected. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. While the verb 'Check' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, the description does not mention whether a live network scan occurs, what the return value looks like, or any permissions or side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool that might perform external actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no waste or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, with one parameter and a clear purpose, and the schema already covers the parameter well. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description could have briefly mentioned the return format or any side effects (e.g., that it performs a TLS handshake). The lack of this detail prevents a 5, but the description is still adequate for the tool's basic function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'domain' parameter, and the schema already provides detailed constraints (bare hostname, no scheme/path/port, rejections). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Check' and clearly states the resource (domain's TLS) and the exact property being checked (post-quantum/hybrid ML-KEM key exchange). It distinguishes itself from sibling scan tools by focusing specifically on this protocol, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools scan_domain_trust or scan_security_headers. It only states what the tool does, without any context about which scenarios warrant using it or any alternative tools to consider.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Grade a domain's HTTP security headers (HSTS, CSP, and more).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | A bare public hostname to scan, for example example.com. No scheme, path, or port; IP literals and internal hostnames are rejected. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral context. It only says 'grade', without mentioning that this likely involves making HTTP requests to the target domain, potential network dependencies, or what form the grade takes. This is a significant gap for a scanning tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource without superfluous details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter scanner, the description conveys the core purpose. However, it omits behavioral details like network access and the output format (the grade), which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema and annotations. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a detailed description of the 'domain' parameter (bare hostname, no scheme/path/port, rejects IP literals). The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter name, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Grade' with a clear resource ('domain's HTTP security headers'), and lists examples (HSTS, CSP) that distinguish it from sibling tools like scan_domain_trust and scan_post_quantum.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose is clear but the description does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives. It implies usage for checking security headers but offers no exclusions or comparisons with the sibling scan tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_agent_exposure_scannerscan_domain_trustscan_post_quantumscan_security_headersRemote MCP server exposing SMI Aware tools, resources, and skills over Streamable HTTP.
Agent rental platform: web-vuln scanning, OSINT and red-team tools via subscription.
Scans remote MCP servers for protocol, security, and TLS issues; exposes scan tools via MCP.
Public AI web-readiness scanner and machine-facing observability discovery service.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
