Audit an HTTP/HTTPS URL for seven critical OWASP security headers and receive an A+ to F grade plus remediation snippets.
Scan an HTTP/HTTPS URL for 7 critical OWASP security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, etc.) and calculate a security grade from A+ to F.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The target URL or domain to audit (e.g. 'https://api.ovh.com') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only external network fetch and describes the computed result, but says nothing about rate limits, timeouts, redirect handling, whether the target must be publicly reachable, or what happens on an unreachable/invalid URL. For a tool that performs live outbound requests, this is a notable gap.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then specifies scope and output. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 one-parameter scan tool with no output schema, the description covers the input type, what is checked, and the shape of the result (a letter grade). It is close to complete, though it omits failure behavior and whether results are structured or prose.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'url' parameter is documented in the schema with an example format, so the description need not restate it. The description adds no extra syntax or normalization details (e.g., whether a bare domain is accepted) beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Scan), an explicit resource (HTTP/HTTPS URL), the exact scope of the check (7 critical OWASP security headers with named examples), and the output (a grade from A+ to F). An agent can immediately tell this apart from the sibling check_rfc9116_security_txt, which audits a file rather than live response headers.
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?
Usage is implied by the wording ('Scan an HTTP/HTTPS URL for...'), so an agent can infer it is for auditing a site's header posture, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to the sibling tool. The alternative (security.txt checking) is never mentioned, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.