Dechonet MCP

HTTP Security Headers Audit

http_security

Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit a URL's HTTP security headers and redirect chain, grading from A+ to F and flagging information leaks such as server-version disclosure.

Instructions

Follow a URL's HTTP redirect chain and audit response security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, COOP, CORP, COEP, Permissions-Policy), grading A+ to F and flagging information leaks such as server-version disclosure. Use this for HTTP-layer/header posture. Use ssl_check instead for certificate or TLS-handshake issues, or security_scan for a full domain report. Read-only (an HTTP GET-style probe that sends no payload); requires no API key; rate-limited. Returns a text report: grade, header findings, redirect trace, issues, and actions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Full URL including scheme (e.g., 'https://example.com/path'). If the scheme is omitted, https:// is assumed. Redirects are followed starting from this URL.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kpis`	No	Key metrics as label/value pairs
`grade`	No	Letter grade (A+ to F) when the tool grades the target
`score`	No	0-100 score when the tool scores the target
`issues`	No	Detected problems, severity-rated
`status`	Yes	Overall verdict, e.g. 'good' \| 'warning' \| 'bad' \| 'info' \| 'unknown'
`actions`	No	Recommended next actions, most important first
`summary`	No	One-paragraph interpretation of the result
`reportUrl`	Yes	Human-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0Sep 8, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "actions": {
+      "description": "Recommended next actions, most important first",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "grade": {
+      "description": "Letter grade (A+ to F) when the tool grades the target",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "issues": {
+      "description": "Detected problems, severity-rated",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "key": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "severity": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "severity",
+          "key"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "kpis": {
+      "description": "Key metrics as label/value pairs",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "label": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "value": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "label",
+          "value"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "reportUrl": {
+      "description": "Human-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "description": "0-100 score when the tool scores the target",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Overall verdict, e.g. 'good' | 'warning' | 'bad' | 'info' | 'unknown'",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "description": "One-paragraph interpretation of the result",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "reportUrl"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.3Jun 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / url / description

Previous value: -"URL to check (e.g., https://example.com)"New value: +"Full URL including scheme (e.g., 'https://example.com/path'). If the scheme is omitted, https:// is assumed. Redirects are followed starting from this URL."

First observedv0.1.0Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description reinforces and extends this by stating 'Read-only (an HTTP GET-style probe that sends no payload)', adding detail beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 compact and information-dense, covering functionality, alternatives, safety, and output in a few sentences without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 output format is described ('text report: grade, header findings, redirect trace, issues, and actions'), the alternative tools are named, and the safety profile is clear, the description gives an agent all needed context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single 'url' parameter has a schema description that is 100% covered. The description adds meaningful behavior context: scheme defaulting to https and that redirects are followed, which goes beyond the schema and clarifies expected input handling.

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 audits HTTP security headers, follows redirect chains, grades A-F, and flags info leaks. It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools ssl_check and security_scan by explaining when each should be used.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use this for HTTP-layer/header posture' and names alternatives (ssl_check for TLS, security_scan for full domain). It also notes read-only, no API key, and rate-limiting, giving clear practical usage constraints.

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

Deploy Server