check_exposed_filesProbe a site for accidentally exposed high-risk files (.env, .git/config, backups, etc.). Reports HTTP status only, never file contents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Full https URL to check |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds critical context: 'Reports HTTP status only, never file contents.' This clarifies the non-destructive, status-only behavior beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence fronts the action and scope, the second clarifies limitation. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains what it does, what it returns (HTTP status), and what it avoids (file contents). Annotations cover safety. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or expected HTTP status codes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (parameter 'url' described as 'Full https URL to check'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Probe') and resource ('exposed high-risk files') with concrete examples (.env, .git/config, backups). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_ssl or check_email_security by focusing on file exposure detection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for security audits but lacks guidance on conditions (e.g., after initial site discovery) or when to prefer other check_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of website analysis: AI visibility, email security, exposed files, security headers, SEO, SSL, and a general scan. No two tools overlap in purpose, making it easy for an agent to select the right one.
Six of seven tools follow the 'check_<subject>' pattern, which is clear and consistent. The outlier 'scan_website' breaks the pattern but is still understandable. Overall, naming is predictable with a minor deviation.
Seven tools is an appropriate number for a website scanning/analysis server. It covers key areas (security, SEO, AI visibility) without being overwhelming. Each tool earns its place by addressing a specific need.
The tool surface covers major website concerns: security (headers, SSL, exposed files, email), SEO, and AI visibility. The general 'scan_website' tool likely fills gaps like performance and secrets. Missing some niche checks (e.g., accessibility), but the core is well-covered.