Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MLNops

MLNops

by Milindu-Weerawarna
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

headers_analyzer

Analyze HTTP security headers for a domain to identify missing or misconfigured headers, with severity ratings for each issue.

Instructions

Analyze HTTP security headers for a domain.

Returns a dict with header analysis including present/absent status, actual values, issues found, and severity ratings.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "headers_analyzer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe domain to analyze (e.g. "example.com")

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return format but does not state that the tool makes HTTP requests to the domain, any side effects, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The description could be more transparent.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous information.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main aspects. It mentions the return format (dict with present/absent, values, issues, severity). However, it could mention that the tool performs an HTTP request to the domain, which is relevant for understanding its operation.

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?

The input schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'domain' with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 'Analyze' and the resource 'HTTP security headers for a domain', and distinguishes this tool from its siblings (e.g., whois_lookup, dns_enumeration) by focusing specifically on HTTP 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 implies usage for analyzing security headers but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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