headers_analysisAnalyze security and disclosure headers on an authorized HTTP endpoint to identify misconfigurations and information leaks.
Analyze security and disclosure headers on one authorized HTTP endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| score | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the word 'authorized,' implying a permission/authorization prerequisite, but says nothing about rate limits, which headers are examined, or any destructive-free guarantees beyond the annotation.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no usage routing among many header-related siblings, the description is only minimally complete for an audit tool.
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 0% and the single 'url' parameter has no description, so the schema does not carry the burden. The description partially compensates by implying exactly one authorized HTTP endpoint, but adds no format, scheme, or validation detail beyond that.
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?
The description states a specific verb (Analyze) and resource (security and disclosure headers) scoped to a single HTTP endpoint, so the agent knows the core action. It does not differentiate from overlapping siblings such as csp_analysis, cors_scan, or cookie_security_analysis, which also operate on 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The phrase 'on one authorized HTTP endpoint' hints at a single-URL scope but leaves the agent to infer when this tool is preferable to http_probe or the header-specific siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.