TLS certificate issuer / validity / SAN summary sourced from public Certificate-Transparency logs (crt.sh JSON). Picks the freshest leaf and reports currentlyValid + daysUntilExpiry. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to inspect |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the tool is read-only and free, which is helpful. However, it does not explain behavior on invalid domains, rate limits, or error cases. Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden but lacks some important behavioral details.
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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes essential details (source, output fields, cost). No extraneous information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers input, source, and key output fields. It is mostly complete, but could mention error handling or response format for full completeness.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'domain' parameter. The description adds value by explaining the source (crt.sh) and what the tool reports, going beyond the schema's minimal description.
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?
Description clearly states the tool provides TLS certificate issuer, validity, and SAN summary from crt.sh. It specifies it picks the freshest leaf and reports currentlyValid and daysUntilExpiry. This distinguishes it from other domain_intel tools like dns_lookup or whois_summary.
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 clearly implies the tool is for inspecting TLS certificates, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions are mentioned, making it clear but not perfectly guided.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, especially the ledger-watch groups with domain prefixes. However, there are near-duplicate utilities such as content_authenticity_domain_reputation and domain_intel_reputation, and fx_tax_convert overlaps with price_oracle_fx_rate/convert. The sheer number of tools also increases the chance of selecting the wrong one, though descriptions are generally clear.
The naming is largely consistent with a <domain>_<action> or <domain>_<watch>_<action> pattern, and all names use snake_case. Minor deviations include standalone names like entity_search, kyb_report, verify_receipt, and the confusing singular/plural pair of sanction_watch_* and sanctions_screen_*. Overall, the pattern is predictable.
With 172 tools, this server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range. It bundles dozens of unrelated utility domains (weather, carbon, CVE, geo, etc.) alongside the Japan public-ledger watches, making it unwieldy for an agent to navigate. This extreme count is a major coherence problem.
For the core Japan public-ledger domain, coverage is excellent: each ledger has search, get, timeline, recent_changes, and verify_ledger, plus cross-ledger entity_search and temporal_query. The unrelated utility areas are also fairly complete for their own purposes, but the server's scope is so broad that some utilities are duplicated (e.g., multiple currency converters). Overall, no critical dead ends in the main domain.