Assess a website's security posture by analyzing HTTP response headers and identifying missing or weak security controls for a given URL.
Analyze HTTP response headers for security posture.
Args: url: Target URL to check headers
Returns: Header analysis with security ratings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool analyzes headers and returns security ratings, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (although likely none), authorization needs, or rate limits, but the stated purpose is clear.
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?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. There is no redundancy or wasted words.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists, so the description adequately covers its core functionality. It could include more context about when to use it or prerequisites, but it is complete enough for basic use.
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%, so the description must compensate. It defines the parameter 'url' as 'Target URL to check headers', which adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. This is helpful and sufficient for a single-parameter tool.
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 clearly states the tool analyzes HTTP response headers for security posture. This specific verb and resource (analyze headers) distinguishes it from siblings like fingerprint_url (likely full page analysis) and fingerprint_waf (WAF detection).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fingerprint_url or fingerprint_waf. The description only states what it does without giving context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.