Generate Content-Security-Policy header from structured directives input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directives | No | CSP directives map, e.g. { 'script-src': ['self', 'nonce-abc123'] } | |
| report_uri | No | Report URI for CSP violations | |
| report_only | No | Use Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only header |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says it generates a header. It does not explain the output format (e.g., whether it returns the full header, how directives are serialized, or how report_only affects output). This leaves important behavioral details unspecified.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core function efficiently and is easy to scan.
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 has moderate complexity with a nested directives object and no output schema. The description covers the overall purpose but does not specify return value format or edge-case behavior (e.g., empty directives, conflicting flags). It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.
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's function: 'Generate Content-Security-Policy header from structured directives input.' It uses a specific verb (Generate) and resource (Content-Security-Policy header), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like validate_cors and detect_secrets.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states the purpose without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose and target resource or operation. While some tools are thematically related (e.g., detect_secrets and classify_gdpr both analyze text), their specific outputs and use cases are clearly separated by names and descriptions.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (convert_currency, generate_uuid, validate_iban), and the noun_to_noun conversion tools (csv_to_json, html_to_text) form a consistent sub-pattern. The mix of verb_noun and X_to_Y is understandable and predictable, though not uniform.
23 tools is on the higher end for a utility server, feeling like a grab-bag of many unrelated functions. While each tool is simple and serves a purpose, the count exceeds the typical well-scoped range, making it heavier than ideal.
The tool coverage is broad but scattered with no clear domain focus. Obvious complementary utilities are missing, such as URL encoding/decoding, YAML conversion, or PDF generation. However, within each small category, core operations are present, so agents can work around gaps.