ScorpTech x402 Tools

Security Txt

security_txt

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch and validate a site's security.txt (RFC 9116) for vulnerability disclosure: tries /.well-known/security.txt then the legacy /security.txt (SSRF-safe), parses Contact / Expires / Encryption / Policy / Acknowledgments / Preferred-Languages / Canonical / Hiring / CSAF, handles PGP-signed files, and reports RFC errors (missing or expired Expires, non-URI contacts, wrong content type, http links, Canonical mismatch) with days until expiry. Price: $0.002 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: GET https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/security-txt

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "security_txt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain or URL of the site

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: SSRF-safe fetching, PGP-signed file handling, which RFC errors are reported, a days-until-expiry output, and pay-per-call pricing ($0.002 USDC via x402) plus an HTTPS endpoint alternative.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then progressively adds fallback paths, parsing, validation, and pricing. Dense but every clause carries information; slight bloat from the pricing/HTTPS tail, though that is genuinely useful for an agent.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the return content (parsed fields, RFC error list, days until expiry), and covers mutation/safety and cost. For a single-param read tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'domain' parameter is already documented as 'Domain or URL of the site'; the description only implies the input is a domain and adds no format or normalization detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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+resource: fetch and validate a site's security.txt per RFC 9116, with concrete fallback paths and parsed fields. No sibling tool overlaps, so an agent can distinguish it immediately from the many math/networking siblings.

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?

Gives clear usage context — vulnerability disclosure discovery — plus the lookup order (/.well-known then legacy), SSRF-safety note, and an alternate HTTPS transport. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer a sibling such as http_probe or headers_audit, so no exclusion guidance.

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

All ScorpTech x402 Tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?