Skip to main content
Glama

ramadasmr-networkcalc-mcp

by ai.smithery
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

certificate_info

Fetch certificate for a given domain

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to look up

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Added value: +"Domain to look up"
    • removedInput schema / properties / domain / title
      Removed value: -"Domain"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"certificate_infoArguments"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "certificate_infoOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose what certificate data is returned (PEM format, parsed fields, chain details), which port/protocol is used (443/HTTPS), or validation behavior (expired/self-signed certificates).

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?

The single sentence is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core action. However, extreme brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral transparency and completeness, preventing a score of 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should indicate what certificate details are returned (issuer, expiration, SANs, full chain). It also omits error handling behavior and authentication requirements, leaving significant gaps for a security-related tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage ('Domain to look up'), the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'given domain' but adds no additional semantic context such as expected format (FQDN, exclude protocol) or examples that would help the agent construct valid inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a clear verb ('Fetch') and identifies the resource ('certificate') and scope ('for a given domain'). It distinguishes sufficiently from siblings like dns_lookup and whois_lookup by specifying 'certificate', though it could explicitly mention SSL/TLS to remove ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like dns_lookup or whois_lookup, which also accept domain parameters. No prerequisites (e.g., port availability, protocol requirements) or error conditions are mentioned.

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

All ramadasmr-networkcalc-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources