check_security_headersGrade a URL's HTTP security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy, COOP, COEP) A-F.
| 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, so description's contribution is adding the specific headers and grading scheme A-F. No mention of potential timeouts, rate limits, or error behavior. With good annotations, a 3 is appropriate for adding some context beyond structured fields.
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?
Single sentence is extremely concise, lists key information (headers, grading scale) upfront. No wasted words, every part adds value.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return format (A-F grade). Could explicitly state it makes a live HTTP request, but that is implied by openWorldHint.
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% (one parameter described as 'Full https URL to check'). Description adds no new parameter details but reinforces the purpose. Baseline 3 is correct since schema already fully documents the parameter.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Grade' and identifies the resource 'URL's HTTP security headers', listing specific headers. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which check other aspects like SEO, SSL, email security, etc.
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?
Purpose is clear (check security headers), but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use. Sibling names help differentiate, but description doesn't mention exclusions or prerequisites.
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.