SSL Checker — Check an SSL certificate for a hostname: expiry, issuer, validity, cipher suite. [category: analyze]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hostname | Yes | The site to check, e.g. example.com — just the address, with no https:// in front and no page path. A port number is ignored; 443 is always used. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / hostname / descriptionPrevious value: -"Hostname to check, e.g. example.com. Field name is 'hostname' — not 'domain'. Any port suffix is ignored; 443 is always used."New value: +"The site to check, e.g. example.com — just the address, with no https:// in front and no page path. A port number is ignored; 443 is always used."Input schema / properties / hostname / titleAdded value: +"Website address"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, outbound read. The description adds the returned fields but says nothing about behavior beyond that — no timeouts, no rate limits, and crucially no statement of what happens on an expired, self-signed, or unresolvable certificate.
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?
One tight, front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource and ends with the payload fields. The bracketed '[category: analyze]' tag is metadata noise that adds no agent-facing value.
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?
With no output schema, the description responsibly enumerates the return fields, and the single required parameter is fully documented. What's missing is failure-mode behavior, which matters for a network-dependent check against hosts that may not be reachable.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the hostname field is documented in detail (no scheme, no path, port ignored, 443 forced). The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Check) and resource (SSL certificate) and enumerates what it reports: expiry, issuer, validity, cipher suite. No sibling in the analyze_* family touches TLS/SSL, so the tool is unambiguous against its peers.
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?
Usage is readily inferable from the description (check the certificate of a host), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, no note on prerequisites (network reachability, DNS resolution), and no mention of an alternative for related checks. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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.