ssl_checkInspect the TLS certificate of a domain: issuer, validity window, days until expiry, trust status, SANs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | e.g. example.com |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific data fields returned but no additional behavioral context like rate limits or prerequisites. It does not contradict annotations.
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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Inspect the TLS certificate of a domain') followed by a compact list of returned details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and result contents. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools but is otherwise complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
The input schema provides a description and example for the single 'domain' parameter, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 starts with 'Inspect the TLS certificate of a domain', providing a specific verb and resource. It lists concrete outputs (issuer, validity window, days until expiry, trust status, SANs), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like domain_check.
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 implies usage for TLS certificate inspection but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as domain_check. No exclusion criteria or comparison to sibling tools is provided, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.
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 are clearly separated by domain, but the cluster of domain-related tools (domain_check, ssl_check, china_reachability) could be confused by an agent looking for a generic 'check this domain' operation. The descriptions help clarify each one's specific focus, so overall ambiguity is low.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use a verb-first pattern (check_vulns, get_weather, transpile_sql), while others use a noun-first pattern (domain_check, stock_quote, ip_lookup). Verbs are also inconsistent (check, get, lookup, transpile), and some names are pure noun phrases (exchange_rate, package_info). This lack of a uniform pattern makes the set feel disjointed.
At 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range and each tool has a distinct purpose. The broad scope makes the set feel somewhat unfocused, but there is no redundancy or excessive bloat.
The server intends to provide live data, but coverage is shallow within each category. For example, weather only gives current conditions and a short forecast, package tools only have info and vulnerabilities, and there is no historical data for stocks. The overall domain is vague, so significant gaps exist for a general-purpose live-data server.