security-tools
Server Details
Free front-end security check for any website: a grade plus the secrets and keys it exposes.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
1 toolscan_securityAInspect
Run a free front-end security check on any website and get a letter grade (A to F) plus specific findings. Answers questions like 'is example.com leaking API keys or secrets in its front-end code', 'does this site expose a Stripe/AWS/OpenAI key or a publicly readable database', or 'how is this website's client-side security'. Reads only what the site serves publicly; never logs in or changes anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The website to check: a domain like example.com or a full URL like https://example.com |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers thoroughly: it declares the operation non-destructive ('never logs in or changes anything'), read-only ('Reads only what the site serves publicly'), and specifies the output contract ('letter grade (A to F) plus specific findings'). It also signals that no credentials or login state are required, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: core function and output first, illustrative example questions second, and the read-only scope constraint last. There is no filler and no repetition of schema content. The most decision-relevant information (what it does and its safety profile) is front-loaded.
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?
For a tool with one fully-documented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, return format (grade plus findings), example use cases, and the non-destructive read-only behavior. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit description of what the tool returns.
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 100%: the single `domain` parameter is fully documented in the schema itself ('a domain like example.com or a full URL'). The description merely reinforces this by using 'example.com' in its examples and adds no syntax, format, or edge-case details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema does all the heavy lifting.
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 and resource ('Run a free front-end security check on any website') and names the concrete output ('a letter grade (A to F) plus specific findings'). The example questions ('is example.com leaking API keys or secrets', 'does this site expose a Stripe/AWS/OpenAI key') pin down the exact scope of the tool. No siblings exist, but the description is fully self-sufficient.
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?
The description provides concrete usage scenarios through its example questions, letting an agent match a user request about leaked secrets or client-side security to this tool. Scope constraints ('Reads only what the site serves publicly; never logs in or changes anything') implicitly mark when it is not appropriate, such as authenticated or private testing. It stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing, but with no sibling tools there is no alternative routing needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- First observed
scan_security
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Free no-account URL security scan: 0-100 Launch Readiness score for any live site in ~15 seconds.
Security, SEO and AI-visibility scanner for web apps · free scans and focused checks via MCP.
Scan a website for vulnerabilities: OWASP Top 10, CVEs, SSL, headers - with plain-English fixes
Scan any public site for AI-agent visibility; get scored findings, a machine-readable fix pack, and
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAudit any website for privacy, security, accessibility, and performance issues — with scores, grades, and actionable fix instructions. No account required.313MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceScans public URLs for compliance and security issues such as leaked API keys, exposed files, missing privacy pages, and security headers, helping developers identify gaps before launch.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenancePassive website security and trust auditor that checks for security, SEO, AI surface, email, and other exposures, producing a score and remediation plan.-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables live website health checks including TLS, HTTPS, and security headers, returning an A-F grade with specific fixes.2MIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another. The single tool's purpose is clearly scoped to front-end security scanning.
The lone tool name 'scan_security' follows a clear verb_noun pattern and is internally consistent. With one tool, there are no conflicting conventions.
One tool is far too few for a server named 'security-tools', which implies a broader set of security capabilities. The tool itself is useful but the server feels under-scoped.
The server covers only a single front-end scanning operation, leaving major gaps like dependency scanning, configuration review, or network checks. For the implied 'security-tools' domain, the surface is quite limited.