Skip to main content
Glama

Security Header Inspection

inspect_security_headers
Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect security-relevant response headers of public URLs to quickly verify browser-facing security baseline before making security claims.

Instructions

Fetch a public URL and inspect security-relevant response headers before you claim that a product or endpoint has a strong browser-facing security baseline. Use this for quick due diligence on public apps and docs sites. It checks for common headers such as HSTS, CSP, X-Frame-Options, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy, and X-Content-Type-Options. It does not replace a real security review, authenticated testing, or vulnerability scanning.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic http(s) URL or bare domain to inspect. Bare domains are normalized to https:// automatically.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputUrlNoOriginal user input when normalization changed it.
urlYesNormalized URL that was fetched.
accessibleYesTrue when the endpoint returned an HTTP response.
statusNoHTTP status code returned by the endpoint.
httpsYesTrue when the normalized URL used https.
presentCountNoNumber of tracked security headers that were present.
scoreNoHeuristic security-header score based on how many tracked headers were present.
headersNoTracked response headers and their raw values when present.
missingRecommendedNoTracked headers that were not present on the response.
errorNoValidation or network error when the request could not be completed.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent read. Description adds behavioral details: fetches URL, inspects specific headers, normalizes bare domains to HTTPS, and warns about limitations. No contradictions.

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?

Multiple sentences but each serves a purpose: action, usage context, list of headers, and limitation. Front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words; efficient and clear.

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?

Given the simplicity (1 param, rich annotations, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, limitations, and behavioral nuances completely. No gaps.

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 schema already fully describes the 'url' parameter with high coverage (100%). Description does not add new semantics beyond usage context; it reinforces 'public URL' but not necessary. Baseline 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 explicitly states the tool fetches a public URL and inspects security headers, listing specific headers. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on quick due diligence for browser security, not replacing full reviews.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It provides clear when-to-use: before claiming a strong security baseline, for quick due diligence on public apps/docs. It also states limitations: does not replace real security review, authenticated testing, or vulnerability scanning. No explicit sibling alternatives, but context is sufficient.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/anish632/ground-truth-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server