Validate CORS policy against security best practices. Reports issues by severity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_age | No | Access-Control-Max-Age in seconds | |
| allow_origin | Yes | Access-Control-Allow-Origin value(s) | |
| allow_headers | No | Allowed request headers | |
| allow_methods | No | Allowed HTTP methods | |
| expose_headers | No | Access-Control-Expose-Headers | |
| allow_credentials | No | Access-Control-Allow-Credentials |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reports issues by severity, but it does not describe the output format, whether it reads external data, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral insight.
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 two sentences: the first states the action, the second states the report nature. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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?
With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description needs to explain the return value. 'Reports issues by severity' is too vague; it does not specify the exact output structure, severity levels, or how to interpret the results. This is inadequate for a validation tool.
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?
All 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not add parameter details. It adds none, which is acceptable because the schema already handles parameter semantics.
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 clearly states the tool validates CORS policies against security best practices, which is a specific verb+resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the sibling list contains no similar validation tool, so the purpose is 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?
Usage is implied from the purpose: use when you need to validate CORS policy. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.