BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner

check_ssl

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the HTTPS/TLS posture of a domain: HTTPS reachability, HSTS policy, and HTTP-to-HTTPS redirect. Also returns certificate metadata (issuer, expiry date, days remaining, SAN count) read from public Certificate Transparency logs — this describes the most recently LOGGED certificate, which may differ from the one currently served. Origin TLS protocol support and cipher suites are not assessed; legacy-TLS detection is withdrawn because the probe cannot observe the origin handshake. Use to verify HTTPS/HSTS configuration and certificate issuer/expiry. Part of the scan_domain audit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	Domain to check (e.g., example.com)
`format`	No	Output verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted.
`force_refresh`	No	Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`score`	Yes
`passed`	Yes
`partial`	No
`category`	Yes
`findings`	Yes
`checkStatus`	No
`verdictWithheld`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 5, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / verdictWithheld
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
Changed2 schema fields changedAug 18, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / checkStatus
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / partial
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedJul 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / force_refresh

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedMay 26, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "category": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "findings": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "properties": {},
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "passed": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "category",
+    "score",
+    "passed",
+    "findings"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedApr 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses a critical data-provenance caveat: certificate metadata comes from public CT logs and reflects the most recently LOGGED certificate, which may differ from the one currently served. It also explains why legacy-TLS detection is absent. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs and could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the caveats. Every sentence carries information (CT-log limitation, excluded checks, usage). Slightly dense, with the withdrawn-legacy-TLS clause being wordy, but nothing is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only domain-inspection tool with an output schema already describing returns, the description supplies what remains: scope, provenance caveats, explicit non-coverage, and a usage pointer. An agent has enough to call and interpret it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so domain, format, and force_refresh are already fully documented in the schema, including the cache-bypass rationale. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (Check) plus a precisely scoped resource (HTTPS/TLS posture of a domain) and enumerates the sub-checks: HTTPS reachability, HSTS policy, HTTP-to-HTTPS redirect, and CT-log certificate metadata. This cleanly separates it from siblings like check_http_security, check_dane_https, and check_svcb_https.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Use to verify HTTPS/HSTS configuration and certificate issuer/expiry' gives a clear use case, and the description draws explicit boundaries by naming what is NOT assessed (origin TLS protocol support, cipher suites, legacy TLS). It stops short of naming a sibling tool to use for those excluded areas, so it is clear context without full alternative routing.

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

All BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner tools Inspect

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.