Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ffraud

ffraud

Official
by FFraud-com
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

Website security check

site_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a website's security posture: TLS, headers, cookies, HTTPS redirects, mail records, blocklists, and bot protection. Returns a 0-100 score, A-F grade, findings, and exact fixes.

Instructions

Check a whole website's security in seconds: the TLS certificate (trusted by browsers, expiry, the names it covers), the security headers (HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, framing, nosniff, referrer and permissions policies), cookie flags, whether http:// moves to https://, the domain's mail records (SPF, DMARC, MX), whether the domain or the addresses serving it are on phishing or abuse lists, and the bot protection the home page loads. Returns a 0-100 score, a grade from A to F, every finding with the exact fix to apply (header lines, DNS records, server settings), and what passed. Reads only what any visitor sees. Free, no key: 20 fresh checks an hour per address, 300 per account with a free key; a site checked in the last ten minutes costs nothing.

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": {
      "site": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "site_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesThe site's domain or any URL of it, e.g. example.com or https://example.com/login
freshNotrue after the site was changed, to check it again now instead of reading the answer kept for ten minutes. A site is checked at most once a minute.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description still adds substantial context on top: it reads only what any visitor sees (no auth or ownership proof needed), documents the throttling tiers (20/hour per address, 300/account with a free key), and explains the ten-minute cache and once-per-minute re-check limit. That is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot express.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then the checked surface, then return values, then cost/limits, which is a sensible order for an agent to consume. It is a single dense run-on with a long comma-separated enumeration, so it is efficient but slightly harder to scan than short discrete sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract and does so concretely: a 0-100 score, an A-F grade, every finding with the exact fix, and what passed. Combined with the documented auth-free access, caching, and rate limits, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and to set expectations about the response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema for 'fresh': it ties the flag to a ten-minute cache window and a once-a-minute floor, and the rate-limit sentence explains that an unchanged site costs nothing. The 'site' parameter's accepted forms are already fully documented in the schema, so no extra credit there.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Check a whole website's security') and enumerates exactly what is inspected: TLS certificate details, security headers, cookie flags, HTTP-to-HTTPS redirect, mail records, blocklist status, and bot protection. The 'whole website' scope implicitly separates it from the narrower domain_check/email_check/ip_check siblings, but it never names or explicitly contrasts them, so an agent scanning the catalog still has to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage context is implied by the scope ('a whole website') and the rate-limit sentence makes the cost model clear, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over domain_check or email_check even though the mail-record and domain-list checks overlap with those siblings. The only direct guidance is for the 'fresh' flag ('true after the site was changed'), which is parameter-level, not tool-selection-level.

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