ScorpTech x402 API

Csp Evaluate

csp_evaluate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate a Content-Security-Policy string the way CSP Evaluator does, before you ship it: parses directives, catches typos, unquoted keywords and deprecated directives, then checks script execution (unsafe-inline without nonce/hash, unsafe-eval, wildcards, http:/https:/data: sources, 40+ known allowlist-bypass hosts with JSONP / AngularJS / user content), object-src, base-uri, frame-ancestors, form-action, reporting and Trusted Types. Returns findings with severity and fixes, a 0-100 score and A-F grade, and a strict nonce-based policy template. Price: $0.002 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: GET https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/csp-evaluate

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": {
      "policy": "<policy>"
    },
    "name": "csp_evaluate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`meta`	No	Policy is delivered in a <meta> tag (frame-ancestors, report-uri and sandbox are then ignored by browsers)
`policy`	Yes	The policy value (without the header name)
`reportOnly`	No	Policy is sent as Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only

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?

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses the paid model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Solana, implying failures aren't charged), the return shape (severity-tagged findings with fixes, 0-100 score, A-F grade, nonce-based template), and the breadth of policy areas inspected. That is exactly the kind of non-schema behavior an agent needs before invoking a metered tool.

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 core action and the 'before you ship it' motivation are front-loaded, and the long enumeration of checks earns its length by telling the agent what will be reported. It is a single dense run-on sentence with the pricing and URL appended, which slightly hurts scannability but not materially.

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?

For a 3-parameter read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers what is analyzed, what comes back (findings, score, grade, template) and the commercial/payment context. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the meaning of policy, meta and reportOnly is already fully documented in structured fields. The description adds no syntax or format hints for the policy string itself, so 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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource ('Evaluate a Content-Security-Policy string the way CSP Evaluator does') and enumerates the exact checks it performs, so an agent can distinguish it from adjacent security tools like headers_audit or security_txt without opening the schema.

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?

'before you ship it' gives clear deployment-stage context, and the description names the alternative access path (the same tool over HTTPS at the given URL). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming a sibling tool to prefer instead, 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 ScorpTech x402 API 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?