Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MoonMCP

MoonMCP

by Moonwuk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

analyze_headers

Audit HTTP security headers of a URL, grading HSTS, CSP, and others, and flagging information-leaking headers and risky cookie flags.

Instructions

Fetch a URL and audit its HTTP security headers.

Grades (A-F) the presence of HSTS, CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type- Options, Referrer-Policy and Permissions-Policy; flags information-leaking headers (Server, X-Powered-By, ...) and risky Set-Cookie flags. In scope only.

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": "analyze_headers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the grading and flagging behavior but omits side effects like network requests, authentication needs, or error handling. It is adequate but not thorough for a tool that fetches external URLs.

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 concise, front-loading the primary action. It lists specific headers in a structured manner, but could be slightly more streamlined. Still, every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is audited (headers, leaks, cookies) and notes the 'in scope' constraint. It is fairly complete, though additional detail on return format or errors would improve it.

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?

The only parameter 'target' has 0% schema description coverage. The description clarifies that it expects a URL ('Fetch a URL'), adding semantic meaning beyond the bare schema type 'string'. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 tool fetches a URL and audits HTTP security headers, listing specific headers and their grades. It also mentions flagging information-leaking headers and risky cookie flags, distinguishing it from siblings like tls_inspect or http_probe.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'In scope only' implies a constraint but does not offer criteria for selection or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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