Skip to main content
Glama

Dechonet-MCP

by com.dechonet

SSL Certificate Check

ssl_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect a host's served TLS/SSL certificate and connection: expiry date, issuer, SAN list, chain integrity, TLS version, and HSTS, returning an A+ to F grade weighted by certificate validity (40%), TLS version (25%), chain trust (15%), and HSTS (20%). 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: it completes a TLS handshake but sends no application data; requires no API key; rate-limited. Returns a text report: grade, expiry/issuer KPIs, issues, and actions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYesHostname to inspect, without scheme (e.g., 'example.com'). The host portion of a pasted URL is also accepted.
portNoTCP port for the TLS handshake. Defaults to 443 (standard HTTPS); set this only for a non-standard HTTPS port such as 8443.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kpisNoKey metrics as label/value pairs
gradeNoLetter grade (A+ to F) when the tool grades the target
scoreNo0-100 score when the tool scores the target
issuesNoDetected problems, severity-rated
statusYesOverall verdict, e.g. 'good' | 'warning' | 'bad' | 'info' | 'unknown'
actionsNoRecommended next actions, most important first
summaryNoOne-paragraph interpretation of the result
reportUrlYesHuman-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating it 'completes a TLS handshake but sends no application data.' It adds useful behavioral context not in annotations: no API key required and rate-limited. It also discloses the grading weights, giving the agent insight into how the result is produced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence serves a purpose: core behavior, output, usage context, alternatives, safety profile, and return format. Key details are front-loaded, and the sibling routing comes after the main purpose. No filler or repetition.

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 single-host diagnostic tool with an output schema already present, the description covers all necessary context: what it inspects, what it returns, when to use it, what alternatives exist, safety behavior, authentication requirement, and rate limiting. There are no meaningful gaps for an agent selecting or invoking this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both host and port, including the default port and URL-host acceptance. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect a host's served TLS/SSL certificate and connection,' then lists concrete outputs such as expiry date, issuer, SAN list, chain integrity, TLS version, and HSTS. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming http_security and security_scan, making selection unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to diagnose certificate or HTTPS-handshake problems for one host.' It also names alternatives and the conditions that select them: http_security for response security headers and security_scan for an all-in-one domain report. This is strong routing guidance.

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

All Dechonet-MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct diagnostic concern: DNS, SSL, HTTP headers, email auth, email headers, ASN, reverse DNS, WHOIS, ports, subnet math, and the caller IP. The overlapping tools (ssl_check vs http_security vs security_scan) are explicitly differentiated by scope and depth, with cross-references that remove ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case and follow a consistent noun_verb or noun_noun pattern built around the resource being inspected, such as dns_lookup, ssl_check, port_scan, and whois_lookup. There are no mixed conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is a well-scoped size for a network/domain/security diagnostic server. Each tool covers a distinct diagnostic capability, and the count is substantial enough to feel complete without becoming bloated or redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface provides broad read-only coverage of domain and network diagnostics: DNS, propagation, WHOIS, ASN, reverse DNS, SSL, HTTP security, email authentication, raw email headers, port scanning, subnet calculation, and an aggregate security scan. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose of domain/network/security investigation.

Resources