Skip to main content
Glama
paulet4a-commits

WebDataTools Domain & website intelligence MCP server

domain_security_audit

Audit any domain list for TLS certificate validity, HTTP security headers, redirect chains, and robots.txt/llms.txt AI-bot rules, returning one scored, graded row per domain.

Instructions

Domain Security Audit checks TLS certificate validity, HSTS/CSP and other HTTP security headers, the redirect chain and robots.txt/llms.txt AI-bot rules for any list of domains — one scored, graded row per domain. Billed to your own Apify account: ~$0.005 per result (Apify free-plan price, lower on paid plans).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainsYesDomains — Enter the domains to audit, one row is returned per domain, e.g. apify.com. Full URLs and www. prefixes are accepted and stripped automatically (https://www.apify.com/store becomes apify.com), so you can paste a list straight out of your CRM. Example: ["apify.com"].
checkTlsNoCheck TLS certificate — Connect on port 443 and read the peer certificate's validity dates, issuer, subject, SAN count, days until expiry and whether the chain is trusted. Turn off to skip this and save a few seconds per domain.
checkRobotsNoCheck robots.txt and llms.txt — Fetch /robots.txt (disallow-all detection, sitemap count, and which AI crawlers such as GPTBot, ClaudeBot and Google-Extended are blocked) and /llms.txt (presence, title, size).
checkHeadersNoCheck HTTP security headers — Read HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy, Server, X-Powered-By, Cache-Control and cookie flags from the final response after redirects.
followRedirectsNoFollow redirect chain — Start at http://<domain>/ and follow Location headers manually (up to 10 hops) to find the final URL, whether it upgrades to HTTPS and whether it adds or drops the www. prefix. Turn off to check the headers of http://<domain>/ directly with no redirect following.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful operational traits: billing to the user's own Apify account at ~$0.005 per result, acceptance/normalization of full URLs and www prefixes, and that disabling checks saves seconds per domain. It stops short of describing auth requirements or how the score/grade is computed.

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?

A single dense capability sentence plus one short billing sentence; the purpose and scope are front-loaded and nothing is wasted. The first sentence is packed but remains readable.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description gives a rough return shape ('one scored, graded row per domain') plus cost, which is enough for an agent to decide and invoke. It does not explain what fields or scale the score/grade uses, a minor gap but not disqualifying.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters with defaults and behavior. The description adds only marginal value here (cost framing, per-domain row), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (checks) and enumerates the exact resources examined: TLS certificate validity, HSTS/CSP and other security headers, redirect chain, and robots.txt/llms.txt AI-bot rules. It also states the output shape ('one scored, graded row per domain'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like dns_email_security_checker and seo_page_audit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the enumeration of checks, so an agent can infer the tool applies to bulk domain security posture assessment. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings (e.g. dns_email_security_checker for DNS/email, seo_page_audit for on-page SEO) nor any explicit when-not condition.

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