SiteCheck Web Intel

Reads a site's public crossdomain.xml

security_crossdomain_xml_test

Read-only

Reads a site's public crossdomain.xml (Adobe Flash) and clientaccesspolicy.xml (Silverlight) if they exist, lists the origins they allow, and flags wildcard grants ('*'). Old policies are rarely needed now, so a wildcard here mostly means leftovers; absence is the normal case. Related tools on this server, for a different need: security_mx_server_test when you need for a mail domain: lists up to 3 MX hosts with their IPv4; security_smb_exposure_test when you need to check Shodan's passive scan records for TCP port 445. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "security_crossdomain_xml_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain name such as www.adobe.com (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`crossdomainXml`	No
`clientAccessPolicyXml`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing that only public files are fetched, that missing files are the expected outcome, and the exact cost model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failures uncharged). That pricing and non-charge-on-failure detail is genuine behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Purpose and output shape are front-loaded, followed by interpretation guidance and cost, which is a sensible order. The two 'related tools for a different need' sentences are marginal filler for a crossdomain check and dilute the focus, keeping it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the description covers the remaining gaps: what is fetched, how to interpret a wildcard, and cost. Only minor items like timeout or behavior against non-resolving domains are absent.

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?

The single 'domain' parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Domain name such as www.adobe.com'), so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no constraints beyond that, such as whether a scheme or subdomain prefix is acceptable.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and two named resources (crossdomain.xml, clientaccesspolicy.xml), then says exactly what it reports: allowed origins plus wildcard flags. This is far more specific than the sibling security_* tools, which are unrelated checks, so an agent can tell instantly what this returns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives interpretation context ('old policies are rarely needed now', 'absence is the normal case') which implicitly tells the agent when a positive result matters, but it never states the condition under which an agent should call this tool. The two named siblings (MX, SMB) are unrelated checks rather than genuine alternatives, so no real routing guidance is provided.

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

All SiteCheck Web Intel 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?