Audit security-critical HTTP response headers like CSP and HSTS, flag anti-patterns, and return an A-F grade to reveal misconfigurations.
Audit 10 security-critical HTTP response headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, etc). Detects anti-patterns and returns a security grade A-F.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.61Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (10 headers checked, anti-patterns flagged, A-F grade), but says nothing about whether the tool makes a live HTTP request, how redirects or http vs https are handled, or any auth/rate-limit constraints.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero waste; the scope (which headers) and the output (grade) are front-loaded and immediately useful.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does describe the return value (grade A-F, anti-patterns), which is helpful, but it leaves the input format ambiguous and omits operational context for a network-fetching 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?
The single required parameter 'target' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never clarifies whether it expects a full URL, a bare domain, or a hostname — a meaningful ambiguity for an HTTP-header audit tool. The phrase 'HTTP response headers' only loosely implies a URL-like input.
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 (audit) and resource (10 security-critical HTTP response headers, with examples CSP/HSTS/X-Frame-Options), plus the outcome (anti-pattern detection, A-F grade). It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools like netintel_ssl_analyze or netintel_url_safety.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus netintel_ssl_analyze, netintel_url_safety, or netintel_domain_vet, and no prerequisites stated. Usage is only inferable from the purpose text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.