SiteCheck Web Intel

Reports which newer HTTP protocols a site advertises

security_tls_alpn_detector

Read-only

Reports which newer HTTP protocols a site advertises: HTTP/3 (h3) and older draft or HTTP/2 alternatives in its Alt-Svc response header, and the Alt-Svc max-age. This is what the server announces, not a TLS ALPN negotiation: the fetch this tool makes cannot choose the protocol, so a site that negotiates but does not send Alt-Svc will show as not advertised. Related tools on this server, for a different need: security_tls_cipher_enum when you need TLS versions a host accepts and its cipher-suite strength; security_vpn_proxy_detector when you need to check an IPv4 address against the public X4BNet list. 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_tls_alpn_detector"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`altSvc`	No
`domain`	No
`source`	No
`finalUrl`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`advertised`	No
`httpStatus`	No
`http3Advertised`	No
`altSvcMaxAgeSeconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description discloses the key behavioral limit — the fetch cannot choose a protocol, so absence of Alt-Svc reads as 'not advertised' — plus billing behavior ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failed calls not charged). That is material context no annotation supplies.

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?

The core purpose and the ALPN caveat are front-loaded, and the sibling routing follows. The pricing sentence is useful but stretches the text; overall it stays tight with no filler.

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 no explanation, and the description still covers scope, the chief false-negative risk, and the alternatives. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

There is one parameter with full schema coverage, and the schema already documents 'Domain name such as example.com (required)'. The description adds no further input meaning, so the baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Reports') and a precise resource ('which newer HTTP protocols a site advertises: HTTP/3 (h3) ... in its Alt-Svc response header'), and explicitly separates itself from a TLS ALPN negotiation. An agent can identify the tool's output 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 Guidelines5/5

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

It names the conditions that select siblings: security_tls_cipher_enum 'when you need TLS versions a host accepts and its cipher-suite strength' and security_vpn_proxy_detector 'when you need to check an IPv4 address'. It also states the negative case where this tool is the wrong choice (a site that negotiates but sends no Alt-Svc).

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?