Agent Utility MCP

analyze_url_risk

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze a URL for structural and security risk signals and return a deterministic, policy-aware decision (allow, notice, confirm or block) under the applicable policy — permissive, balanced or strict, balanced by default.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The absolute URL to analyze.
`policy`	No	Optional policy used to compute the decision: permissive, balanced or strict (default: balanced).
`context`	No	Optional declarative context.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`port`	Yes
`risk`	Yes
`input`	Yes
`valid`	Yes
`checks`	Yes
`domain`	Yes
`signals`	Yes
`decision`	Yes
`hostname`	Yes
`protocol`	Yes
`subdomain`	Yes
`risk_score`	Yes
`public_suffix`	Yes
`normalized_url`	Yes
`policy_applied`	Yes
`schema_version`	Yes
`ruleset_version`	Yes
`context_completeness`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating the decision is deterministic and listing possible outcomes (allow, notice, confirm, block) and the default policy. This complements the read-only and idempotent hints without contradiction.

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?

The single-sentence description is front-loaded with the action and includes all essential context without redundancy or 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?

Given the rich annotations, complete input schema, and available output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, default behavior, and policy options, making it complete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the policy-aware decision logic and default policy, but it does not detail individual parameters 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 clearly states the tool analyzes URLs for structural and security risk signals and returns a deterministic, policy-aware decision, explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools that analyze tool calls, commands, or files.

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 implies use for URL risk assessment and clarifies the default policy, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or list exclusions. It provides clear context without formal alternatives.

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

All Agent Utility MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct artifact: tool calls, URLs, shell commands, and files. There is no overlap in their input types or risk-analysis scopes, so an agent can clearly select the right tool for the situation.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern, but two different verbs are used ('analyze' and 'inspect'). This is a minor deviation from a single consistent verb, yet the pattern remains predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each one addresses a distinct, necessary aspect of pre-execution safety analysis. The count feels purposeful and not bloated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the major categories of risky operations (actions, URLs, commands, files). A minor gap is the lack of a tool to configure or retrieve the policy that governs the decisions, but the core analysis surface is adequately complete.

Resources

Need Help?