Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Pugi

by io.pugi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check a website for security issues

scan_url
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the person wants a public website checked for security problems, for example "is my site secure?" or "check example.com". Free and read-only: HTTPS, security headers, cookie flags and exposed keys, with a grade from A+ to F and how to fix each finding. Not a pentest. Do not use for private or local addresses or for code repositories (use scan_repo).

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "scan_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe public address to check, for example https://example.com
languageNoThe language the person is writing in, as a BCP 47 tag such as "ru".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / language
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The language the person is writing in, as a BCP 47 tag such as \"ru\".",
+  "maxLength": 35,
+  "pattern": "^[a-z]{2,3}(-[A-Za-z0-9]{2,8})?$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value beyond that with 'Free', the grade scale (A+ to F), inclusion of remediation guidance per finding, and the deliberate scope bound 'Not a pentest'. It does not mention rate limits, timeouts, or what happens for unreachable hosts, which is the only meaningful gap.

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?

One tight paragraph, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then scope, then the return shape, then exclusions — a sensible ordering. Every clause carries information, though the quoted example utterances and the coverage list make it denser than strictly necessary.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the deliverable: a letter grade plus fixes for each finding. Combined with the free/read-only note and the negative scope, an agent has everything needed to decide and to set expectations with the user.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (url, language) are documented in the schema with format and example. The description reinforces the 'public website' constraint on url but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('public website checked for security problems') and enumerates exactly what is inspected: HTTPS, security headers, cookie flags, exposed keys. It explicitly rules out what it is not ('Not a pentest') and names the sibling for the adjacent case (scan_repo), so the agent can distinguish it from every sibling in one read.

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?

Gives concrete trigger utterances ('is my site secure?', 'check example.com'), then explicit exclusions: no private or local addresses, no code repositories, use scan_repo instead. Both the when and the when-not, with the alternative named, are present.

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

All Pugi toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources