Connect to a host over TLS and report its certificate's expiry date, days remaining, issuer, and subject.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No | TLS port to connect to (default 443) | |
| hostname | Yes | Hostname to check, e.g. papacasper.com (no scheme/path) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (connecting over TLS and reporting specific certificate fields) and clearly indicates a read-only action via 'report'. It does not mention error handling or network assumptions, but the described behavior is accurate and transparent enough for a simple check tool.
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?
A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Connect to a host over TLS') and then lists the output fields with no filler or redundant wording. Every word earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the key returned certificate details (expiry date, days remaining, issuer, subject), making the tool's purpose and expected output clear. It omits potential error states or details like port defaults, but the schema covers the port and the core invocation is fully understandable.
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%: both hostname and port have explanatory descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not add further parameter semantics, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Connect') with a clear resource (TLS certificate) and clearly states what it reports: expiry date, days remaining, issuer, and subject. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool ssl_labs_grade, which may perform a related but different check, hence not a 5.
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 usage is implied through the description: it is for checking SSL certificate details over TLS. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssl_labs_grade or check_open_ports, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.
Many tools audit overlapping site signals (seo_audit vs structured_data_extract vs tech_stack_fingerprint; page_performance_check vs pagespeed_insights; ssl_cert_check vs ssl_labs_grade; broken_link_check vs sitemap_url_validator), so an agent could initially pick the wrong one. Descriptions usually clarify the distinction, but the boundaries are not always obvious.
Most names follow a snake_case target+operation pattern (ssl_cert_check, email_deliverability_check), but check_open_ports and check_robots_sitemap reverse the order, and the action suffixes vary widely (check, audit, validate, lookup, extract, grade, report, insights). Still readable, but not a single predictable convention.
At 29 tools, the server is above the 25-tool threshold and feels like an undifferentiated grab bag of single-purpose audits rather than a tightly scoped toolkit. Many checks could be consolidated (e.g. the separate SSL and performance tools, or domain_report versus its component checks).
For a web/domain/email/security diagnostics toolbelt, the coverage is unusually broad: DNS, TLS, email, SEO, structured data, vulnerabilities, ports, redirects, and more are all represented. Minor gaps exist (no generic HTTP request/debug tool, no zone-transfer or full WHOIS history), but agents can accomplish most diagnostic workflows without hitting dead ends.