1cent Web Intelligence for AI Agents

Url Security Headers

web.url.security_headers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess common response security headers as static evidence. Use only for public HTTP(S) resources; it does not execute JavaScript or bypass access controls. Pass url as an absolute public HTTP(S) URL. Keep fresh=false to allow cache reuse; set fresh=true only when a new upstream fetch is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Absolute public HTTP or HTTPS URL to inspect. Private, loopback, link-local, metadata-service and otherwise SSRF-sensitive destinations are rejected.
`fresh`	No	Set true only when a new upstream fetch is required; false allows the bounded cached result and is cheaper for the origin.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`tool`	Yes
`quality`	No
`url_final`	Yes
`checked_at`	Yes
`from_cache`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes
`content_hash`	Yes
`url_requested`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedJul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds 'does not execute JavaScript or bypass access controls' and 'static evidence', enriching behavioral context 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four concise, front-loaded sentences: purpose, usage constraint, parameter advice. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given annotations cover safety, schema covers parameters, and an output schema exists, description is nearly complete. Could list typical headers checked (e.g., CSP, HSTS) but not essential with output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description essentially restates parameter guidance ('absolute public HTTP(S) URL', 'fresh=false for cache reuse') without adding new meaning beyond schema examples and patterns.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it assesses common response security headers as static evidence. Distinct from sibling web.url.headers which returns all headers, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides clear constraints: only for public HTTP(S) resources, no JavaScript execution, no access control bypass. Gives caching advice for fresh parameter. Does not contrast with sibling tools but covers when to use cache vs fresh.

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

All 1cent Web Intelligence for AI Agents 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

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists among text extraction tools (url_extract, url_text, url_markdown, url_rag_chunks). Descriptions help differentiate them, so disambiguation is mostly clear.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent prefix (catalog_, demo_, site_, url_) and use lowercase snake_case with descriptive names. Conventions are uniform throughout.

Tool Count5/5

35 tools cover a comprehensive range of URL and site analysis functions without feeling bloated. Each tool serves a specific purpose, and the count is appropriate for the server's scope.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers all major aspects of URL analysis: health, content, metadata, change detection, site discovery, and security. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.

Resources

Need Help?