Full SSL Labs-style TLS assessment: overall letter grade, protocol support (TLS 1.0-1.3), cipher strength, certificate chain issues, and known vulnerabilities (Heartbleed, POODLE, etc.) for each endpoint. Slower than ssl_cert_check (can take up to ~90s on a cold cache; SSL Labs caches results for 24h server-side).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hostname | Yes | Hostname to assess, e.g. example.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 that the tool is slower (up to ~90s) and that results are cached for 24h, which are important behavioral traits. It also specifies what it assesses. While it doesn't mention possible failure modes or rate limits, it goes well beyond a minimal description and is transparent about timing and caching.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose and scope, the second provides timing and comparison to the sibling tool. Front-loaded, efficient, and every word contributes to decision-making.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how long it takes, and how it differs from the sibling. It doesn't describe the output structure, but that's not required without an output schema. The missing piece is any error handling or edge cases, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
The input schema already describes the only parameter (hostname) with a clear format and example ('no scheme/path'). The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter itself, so it stays at the baseline of 3 given the high schema coverage.
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 clearly states it is a 'Full SSL Labs-style TLS assessment' and enumerates specific aspects (overall grade, protocol support, cipher strength, certificate chain issues, known vulnerabilities). It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool ssl_cert_check, making the purpose distinct and unambiguous.
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?
Provides explicit comparison to ssl_cert_check by noting it is slower, implying it should be chosen when a comprehensive assessment is needed rather than a quick check. It also mentions the caching behavior (24h server-side) which helps set expectations. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives.
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.