security_headers
Check HTTP security headers (HSTS, CSP, X-Frame-Options, etc.) and return a 0–100 score.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
domain-intel
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning a 0–100 score but omits that the tool likely performs a live HTTP request to the target domain, potential side effects, or scoring criteria. This is a significant transparency gap.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It concisely conveys the core function and output, making it appropriately sized for a simple single-purpose tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description partially explains the return value (0–100 score) but doesn't clarify what the score represents or whether individual headers are also returned. It's adequate for a simple tool but leaves some ambiguity about the exact response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on the 'domain' parameter, such as expected format (e.g., with or without protocol), input constraints, or edge cases. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states the action (check) and resource (HTTP security headers) with specific examples like HSTS, CSP, and X-Frame-Options. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as dns_lookup and phishing_check, which focus on different security aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like full_report or phishing_check. The description implies usage for header checks but doesn't explicitly state use cases, exclusions, or how it complements other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool has a distinct focus: DNS records, comprehensive report, phishing analysis, and security headers. However, full_report subsumes the other tools, which could lead to confusion about whether to call it instead of the specialized tools.
Naming Consistency3/5
All names use snake_case, which is consistent, but the structure varies: noun_verb (dns_lookup, phishing_check), adjective_noun (full_report), and compound noun (security_headers). This mixed pattern is readable but not as predictable as a uniform verb-first convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for domain intelligence. The set feels neither bloated nor thin, and each tool contributes a meaningful capability.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers DNS, phishing, HTTP security, and a full report. Missing dedicated WHOIS or email security tools, but the full_report includes registrar hints and SPF/DMARC, so most domain intel needs are covered.