SiteCheck Web Intel

Decodes a JWT you supply and reports its algorithm, key id

security_jwt_token_inspector

Read-only

Decodes a JWT you supply (header and payload, base64url JSON) and reports its algorithm, key id, claims, and time checks (exp, nbf, iat). Flags alg none, symmetric HS algorithms, missing exp and a jku/x5u key reference. It does not verify the signature, because no key is given, and it does not fetch the key URL. 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": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "security_jwt_token_inspector"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes	A JWT in compact form: header.payload.signature (required, max 8 KB)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No
`keyId`	No
`claims`	No
`issuer`	No
`issues`	No
`source`	No
`expired`	No
`subject`	No
`audience`	No
`issuedAt`	No
`algorithm`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`expiresAt`	No
`notBefore`	No
`signatureVerified`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say read-only and open-world; the description goes well beyond by disclosing that signature verification and key-URL fetching are deliberately omitted, which risks an agent over-trusting the output. It also discloses the payment model (x402, $0.002 USDC per successful call, failures uncharged), a behavior an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Three sentences ordered by importance: what it does, what it deliberately omits, then cost. Every clause carries information an agent needs, including the pricing caveat, with no redundant restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained; the description still enumerates the checks performed and the flagged weak configurations (alg none, HS algorithms, missing exp, jku/x5u). For a one-parameter read-only tool, the only remaining thing an agent needs to know is the cost and the no-verification limit, both stated.

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 'token' parameter is fully documented as compact form with an 8 KB cap. The description restates that input is a JWT with base64url JSON header/payload, adding only marginal decoding context, so the baseline of 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 (decodes) and resource (a supplied JWT) plus exactly what it reports: algorithm, key id, claims, and exp/nbf/iat time checks. Nothing in the sibling list covers JWT inspection, and the description makes that scope obvious without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly bounds the tool with when-not statements: it does not verify the signature because no key is supplied, and it does not fetch the jku/x5u key URL. That tells an agent when this tool is insufficient, but no alternative tool is named for signature verification or key retrieval.

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?