Skip to main content
Glama

IA-QA — 130+ QA & Dev Tools for AI Agents

security_headers_check

Read-only

Analyse the HTTP security headers of a public URL OR of raw response headers you paste in. Grades each header (A–F) for: Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy, X-XSS-Protection, Cross-Origin-Opener-Policy, Cross-Origin-Resource-Policy, and Cross-Origin-Embedder-Policy. Returns an overall score (0–100), per-header grades, missing headers, and fix snippets for Express, Nginx, and Apache. For localhost/private targets the remote server cannot reach, pass the headers parameter instead of url.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoOptional. Full public URL to check (e.g. https://example.com). Omit it entirely when using `headers`. The server cannot reach localhost/private IPs.
headersNoOptional, and sufficient on its own (no url needed). The response headers to grade, either as an object {"strict-transport-security": "max-age=...", ...} or as the raw header block pasted as a string (e.g. `curl -sI` output). Use this to audit a local server the remote MCP cannot reach.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fixNo
keyNo
urlNo
weakNo
gradeNo
scoreNo
valueNo
headerNo
sourceNo
weightNo
detailsNo
missingNo
weak_countNo
missing_countNo
overall_gradeNo
headers_checkedNo

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the A–F grading scale, the overall 0–100 score, missing header reporting, fix snippets, and the critical limitation that the server cannot reach localhost/private IPs. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense, well-organized sentences cover the tool's purpose, input modes, grading criteria, output details, and a usage caveat. Every sentence carries substantive information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With an output schema present, the description is not obligated to detail return values, but it still summarizes the overall score, per-header grades, missing headers, and fix snippets. The input modes and limitations are thoroughly explained, making the tool usable without needing to inspect the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers both parameters 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by framing the tool as accepting 'a public URL OR raw response headers', clarifying that one of the two is expected and providing a practical decision rule for which to use. This is useful guidance beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Analyse') and resource ('HTTP security headers') and clearly distinguishes two input modes (public URL or raw headers). It lists the exact headers graded and the output components, making it unmistakable what the tool does and how it differs from sibling tools like cookie_security_audit or cors_checker.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the `headers` parameter instead of `url` (for localhost/private targets the server cannot reach), which is directly actionable. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the domain and parameter guidance provide clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap significantly: compare_models/llm_fit_finder/model_info/list_llm_models all compare models; similarity_score/embedding_similarity/run_semantic_tests all measure text similarity; detect_secrets/secret_scan/analyze_diff_bugs/pr_gatekeeper all scan for secrets. Descriptions attempt to differentiate, but the boundaries between many tools are unclear, making selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (validate_email, generate_uuid, parse_csv), making the set mostly predictable. A few notable deviations exist (pr_gatekeeper, llm_fit_finder, cot_analyzer, jira_to_test_suite, needle_haystack_generate) but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Tool Count1/5

With 149 tools, this set is far beyond the 50+ threshold for an extreme mismatch. Even as a general-purpose QA & Dev toolkit, the sheer number overwhelms and exceeds any reasonable scope, making discovery and selection impractical.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers an impressively broad range: text processing, LLM evaluation, security auditing, web checks, MCP validation, Jira/Confluence integration, and more. Minor gaps exist, such as missing delete/update for webhooks and Confluence pages, and no create/update for Jira issues, but these are workable around.

Resources