get_domain_ssl_statusReturn SSL/certificate status and pending certificate validation DNS records for the app custom domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app ID | |
| domain | No | Optional configured custom domain. If omitted, uses the app's current custom domain. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it returns 'pending certificate validation DNS records,' which is not in the annotations and helps the agent understand what actionable information is provided. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no fluff, filler, or redundant information, and every word contributes meaning.
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 simple read-only getter with just two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what is returned at a high level. It does not detail the exact output structure, but given the simplicity of the tool and the annotations covering safety, nothing critical is missing.
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% for both parameters (app_id and domain), so the schema already documents them fully. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, though it does mention the domain is a custom domain. This meets the baseline for high coverage without extra enrichment.
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 returns SSL/certificate status and pending certificate validation DNS records for the app custom domain. The verb 'Return' and specific resource make the purpose unambiguous, and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_domain_verification, which focuses on domain verification rather than SSL status.
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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving SSL status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the many related domain tools (e.g., check_domain_verification). There is no mention of when not to use it or alternatives, leaving the selection largely to inference from the name and description.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there are some overlapping pairs like read_app_file/read_app_files and create_entity_records vs seed_entity, which could cause misselection. Singular/plural variants and compatibility tools introduce minor ambiguity, but the majority are well-separated.
Tool names predominantly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_app, get_entities, delete_secret). There are some variations like 'agency_create_client' and 'seed_entity' that deviate slightly, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
With 82 tools, the server is far above the typical range and feels overwhelming. Even for a full platform API, the count is extreme and likely increases selection complexity. A more curated set would improve navigability without sacrificing capability.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering app lifecycle, file operations, entity CRUD, versioning, A/B testing, secrets, integrations, domains, agents, scheduling, policies, and member management. No obvious missing operations for the platform's scope; it even includes validation and workflow guidance tools.