Lordevo Shop (x402 website checks)

Website Security Scan LITE (passive summary) ($0.02/call)

security_scan_lite

Read-onlyIdempotent

$0.02 per call (x402, USDC on Base; not covered by the free trial). [SEO, security and site verdicts] LITE version of the Website Security Check: passive summary only (headers, TLS/certificate, HTTP->HTTPS, cookies, SPF/DKIM/DMARC, CAA, IPv6, security.txt) with grade A-F and top 10 findings. Nothing intrusive. ~3-10 s. Upgrade: Passive check ($1) or Deep active scan ($5, ownership verification required).

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "security_scan_lite"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public http(s) URL or bare domain, e.g. https://example.com

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`tier`	No
`tool`	No
`cache`	No
`grade`	No
`score`	No
`_trial`	No	Present when the call was a free trial call.
`domain`	No
`upsell`	No
`summary`	No
`provider`	No
`price_usd`	No
`passive_only`	No
`top_findings`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "tool",
+        "url"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "properties": {
+        "accepts": {
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "error": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "resource": {
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "x402Version": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "x402Version",
+        "accepts"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "properties": {
+        "charged": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "error": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "error"
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+  "properties": {
+    "_trial": {
+      "description": "Present when the call was a free trial call.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "cache": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "domain": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "grade": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "passive_only": {
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "price_usd": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "provider": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "tier": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "top_findings": {
+      "type": [
+        "array",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "upsell": {
+      "type": [
+        "array",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the per-call price and that it is excluded from the free trial, the passive/non-intrusive nature, and the ~3-10 s latency, which matters for an agent sequencing calls.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads pricing and scope, then coverage, then upgrade paths. Every clause carries information, though the bracketed '[SEO, security and site verdicts]' tag is slightly distracting and the sentence is packed rather than scannable.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and full safety annotations, nothing material is missing: cost, latency, scope, non-intrusiveness, output format and upgrade alternatives are all stated.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining 'Public http(s) URL or bare domain'. The description adds no additional constraint (e.g. private hosts or IPs being rejected), so the baseline 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 ('LITE version of the Website Security Check: passive summary only') and enumerates the exact checks covered (headers, TLS, HTTPS redirect, cookies, SPF/DKIM/DMARC, CAA, IPv6, security.txt) plus the output shape (grade A-F, top 10 findings). This clearly separates it from sibling single-purpose tools like security_headers, ssl_cert and domain_intel.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as the passive, non-intrusive option and names the escalation paths — Passive check at $1 and Deep active scan at $5 requiring ownership verification — which gives the agent a clear selection rule. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over narrower siblings such as ssl_cert or security_headers, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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

All Lordevo Shop (x402 website checks) 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?