Skip to main content
Glama

Scan a website's HTTP security headers (HSTS, CSP, framing, COOP/CORP/COEP, cookies)

scan_headers
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan the HTTP security headers of a public website. Returns a 0–100 score and A+–F grade (HTTPS 10, HSTS 15, CSP 25, framing 10, X-Content-Type-Options 10, Referrer-Policy 10, Permissions-Policy 5, COOP 5, CORP 5, cookies 5, minus up to 5 for version-leak headers; without HTTPS the score is capped at 39), each header's status and notes, recommended fix headers, and a link to the full report with copy-paste snippets for nginx, Apache, Cloudflare, Netlify, Vercel and Express. Read-only: it sends ordinary GET requests to the site (following up to 10 redirects, each safety-checked) and never reads page bodies. Same engine and scoring as the HeaderGuard JSON API (GET /api/scan).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL or bare domain to scan, e.g. example.com or https://example.com/login. A bare domain is scanned as https://<domain>/ (plain HTTP if HTTPS does not answer).
include_rawNoAlso return the full /api/scan JSON (redirect chain, all response headers with cookie values redacted, per-platform fix snippets) in structuredContent.raw. Larger output.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawNoFull /api/scan response (only when include_raw is true)
urlYesNormalized URL that was scanned
planYes
fixesYes
gradeNoOmitted when the grade is withheld
notesNo
scoreNoOmitted when the grade is withheld
apiUrlNo
cachedNo
versionNo
finalUrlYes
findingsYes
reportUrlYes
scannedAtNo
finalStatusNo
reliabilityYes
gradeWithheldYestrue when the site blocked, rate-limited or challenged the scanner
redirectCountNo
gradeWithheldReasonNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial extra context: redirect handling up to 10 hops, never reading page bodies, scoring formula details, and equivalence to the HeaderGuard JSON API.

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 description is front-loaded and information-dense, with the purpose stated first and supporting details following. However, the parenthetical scoring breakdown is lengthy, and some return-value detail overlaps with the output schema.

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?

The description covers purpose, return summary, scoring behavior, request safety, and API equivalence. With rich annotations and an output schema already present, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 url and include_raw parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add further parameter-specific meaning such as URL edge cases or include_raw tradeoffs, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: scanning HTTP security headers of a public website. It also names the exact header families covered, making the tool's scope immediately clear even without sibling tools.

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?

The description makes clear this is for public websites and explains the scan is read-only using ordinary GET requests. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but with no sibling tools and a clear public-site scope, the context is sufficient.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources