Dechonet-MCP

SSL Certificate Check

ssl_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect a host's served TLS/SSL certificate and connection: expiry date, issuer, SAN list, chain integrity, revocation (OCSP, then CRL; unknown when neither answers — not graded unless revoked), TLS version, and HSTS, returning an A+ to F grade weighted by certificate validity (40%), TLS version (25%), chain trust (15%), and HSTS (20%). From Seoul it also lists the protocol versions and cipher suites the server accepts — including SSL 3.0, RC4, 3DES, export, NULL and anonymous suites and the Korean SEED/ARIA ciphers — with TLS compression, secure renegotiation, TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV, DH group size and TLS 1.3 key exchange groups; weak findings cap the grade as SSL Labs does (F, C or B). Use this to diagnose certificate or HTTPS-handshake problems for one host. Use http_security instead to audit response security headers, or security_scan for an all-in-one domain report. Read-only: one full TLS handshake plus opening ClientHello messages whose first answer is read; no application data and no vulnerability probes; requires no API key; rate-limited. Returns a text report: grade, expiry/issuer KPIs, issues, and actions.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes	Hostname to inspect, without scheme (e.g., 'example.com'). The host portion of a pasted URL is also accepted.
`port`	No	TCP port for the TLS handshake. Defaults to 443 (standard HTTPS); set this only for a non-standard HTTPS port such as 8443.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kpis`	No	Key metrics as label/value pairs
`grade`	No	Letter grade (A+ to F) when the tool grades the target
`score`	No	0-100 score when the tool scores the target
`issues`	No	Detected problems, severity-rated
`status`	Yes	Overall verdict, e.g. 'good' \| 'warning' \| 'bad' \| 'info' \| 'unknown'
`actions`	No	Recommended next actions, most important first
`summary`	No	One-paragraph interpretation of the result
`receipts`	No	Signed observation receipts behind this result, one per lookup: when, from where and under which rules version DechoNet observed it. Each url shows the record and checks its Ed25519 signature.
`reportUrl`	Yes	Human-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com
`observation`	No	How much was actually observed and when. A partial observation means some checks did not answer: missing parts are not verified, never clean.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / receipts

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Signed observation receipts behind this result, one per lookup: when, from where and under which rules version DechoNet observed it. Each url shows the record and checks its Ed25519 signature.",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "id": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "tool": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "url": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "tool",
+      "id",
+      "url"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / observation

Added value: +{
+  "description": "How much was actually observed and when. A partial observation means some checks did not answer: missing parts are not verified, never clean.",
+  "properties": {
+    "ageMinutes": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "cached": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "observedAt": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "state": {
+      "enum": [
+        "complete",
+        "partial",
+        "unknown"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: one full TLS handshake plus ClientHello messages with only the first answer read, no application data, no vulnerability probes, no API key required, and rate limiting. It also discloses how weak findings cap the grade, which affects interpretation.

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 what gets inspected and the grade weighting, then usage routing, then behavioral guarantees, so priority information comes first. It is dense and long, with the cipher-suite enumeration adding bulk, but nearly every clause carries operational meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, and the description still notes it returns a text report with grade, expiry/issuer KPIs, issues, and actions. Combined with the behavioral and routing coverage, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the no-scheme hostname format and port default of 443, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that baseline; its grade-weighting detail applies to output, not input.

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 and resource (inspect a host's served TLS/SSL certificate and connection) and enumerates exactly what is checked: expiry, issuer, SAN list, chain integrity, revocation, TLS version, HSTS, plus a letter grade. It explicitly differentiates itself from http_security and security_scan, so an agent can place it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives a direct when-to-use ('diagnose certificate or HTTPS-handshake problems for one host') and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them: http_security for response security headers and security_scan for an all-in-one domain report. This is explicit routing, not implied.

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

All Dechonet-MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?