Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

7IT Solutions

by io.github.XLSV777
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check a web app’s security hygiene

check_app_security
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when someone asks whether a website or web app is secure, safe to launch, or missing security headers. Not a penetration test, and it cannot see pages behind a login. Checks a public web app for the baseline browser protections every production app should send (Content Security Policy, HTTPS enforcement, clickjacking protection, MIME-sniffing, referrer and permissions policy, cross-origin isolation) and whether a JavaScript source map is served publicly. Reads only the public response headers any visitor's browser receives; never logs in, submits a form, calls the app's APIs, or reads its data for secrets. Useful for an app built with an AI tool (Lovable, Replit, Bolt, v0, Cursor).

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": "check_app_security"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe app’s public web address, for example myapp.com or https://myapp.lovable.app

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo
gradeNo
httpsNo
totalNoHow many baseline protections were checked
missingNo
presentNoHow many of the baseline protections are in place
signalsNoEach protection, whether it is present, and why it matters
reachableYes
report_urlYesShareable report with fixes
source_map_publicNoTrue if the app publishes a JavaScript source map

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "grade": {
+      "enum": [
+        "strong",
+        "partial",
+        "weak"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "https": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "missing": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "present": {
+      "description": "How many of the baseline protections are in place",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "reachable": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "report_url": {
+      "description": "Shareable report with fixes",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "signals": {
+      "description": "Each protection, whether it is present, and why it matters",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "properties": {
+          "key": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "label": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "present": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "why": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "key",
+          "label",
+          "present",
+          "why"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "source_map_public": {
+      "description": "True if the app publishes a JavaScript source map",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "description": "How many baseline protections were checked",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "reachable",
+    "report_url"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it reads only the public headers any browser receives and never logs in, submits forms, calls the app's APIs, or reads data for secrets. That precisely bounds the blast radius and honesty of the result.

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?

Usage trigger is front-loaded, followed by scope limits and then the checklist of headers examined. The third sentence's parenthetical enumeration is long, but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the tool actually reports.

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, return values need not be described, and the description covers scope, capability limits, and what is inspected. Nothing an agent needs to decide to call this tool or to interpret its domain 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 coverage is 100% and the single url parameter is already documented in the schema with format examples, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further syntax, normalization, or validation detail about the URL beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource (check a public web app's security hygiene) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: baseline browser protections and publicly served source maps. It implicitly separates itself from the deeper sibling deep_scan_app by framing this as a header-level hygiene check rather than a scan.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions (someone asks whether a site is secure, safe to launch, or missing security headers) and clear exclusions (not a penetration test, cannot see behind a login). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling to route to when those conditions fail, so it is strong but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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

All 7IT Solutions toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources