Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kali Linux MCP Server

Kali Linux MCP Server

by AlessandroAnnini
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

security_headers_check

Analyze HTTP response headers to identify missing security configurations and ensure compliance with best practices.

Instructions

Check HTTP security headers configuration for best practices

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "security_headers_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesTarget URL to check

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'check' but does not clarify whether the tool makes HTTP requests, is read-only, or any side effects. The minimal description leaves significant ambiguity about behavior.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and concise, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., headers list, pass/fail status) or any operational details, leaving gaps for an agent to understand the full context.

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%, with the parameter 'target' described as 'Target URL to check'. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Check', the resource 'HTTP security headers configuration', and the purpose 'for best practices'. It distinguishes the tool from sibling security scanners (e.g., nmap_scan, nikto_scan) by focusing specifically on security headers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and description, lacking context for decision-making.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools