Check a publisher domain for HTTPS and certificate issues: expired/untrusted/hostname-mismatch certs, HTTPS down, HTTP that does not upgrade, and certs expiring within 14 days. Does not write a finding when both HTTP and HTTPS are unreachable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Publisher domain, for example example.com. | |
| outputFormat | No | markdown |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool does not write a finding when both HTTP and HTTPS are unreachable, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly confirm the tool is read-only, describe any side effects, or mention potential network dependencies or rate limits.
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 long, front-loading the primary purpose and listing specific checks. The second sentence adds a behavioral exception without unnecessary verbiage. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure is clear and efficient.
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 has two parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format (despite the outputFormat parameter existing), how results are structured, error handling for unreachable domains, or what 'finding' means in the context of output. The behavioral note is helpful but insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 50% (domain has a description, outputFormat does not). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the outputFormat parameter or its impact on results. The description focuses on the checks performed but leaves the parameter semantics largely undocumented.
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 the tool checks a publisher domain for HTTPS and certificate issues, listing specific problems like expired certs, untrusted certs, hostname mismatch, HTTPS down, HTTP not upgrading, and certs expiring within 14 days. This provides a precise verb+resource definition with explicit scope, distinguishing it from the Sulvo-focused sibling tools.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. With no similar sibling tools, it misses the opportunity to clarify its role as a general-purpose domain check not tied to the Sulvo workflow.
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 are clearly scoped (e.g., `create_sulvo_ad_unit` vs `delete_sulvo_ad_unit`), but there is confusion with tools like `run_publisher_revenue_audit` and `get_publisher_revenue_audit_checklist` which sound like they could overlap. Also, `start_sulvo_signup` and `create_sulvo_signup_account` seem to operate on different stages of signup but could be confused at a glance.
The naming convention is generally consistent with a `verb_sulvo_noun` pattern (e.g., `create_sulvo_ad_unit`, `delete_sulvo_ad_unit`). The `get_` and `run_` prefixes are used somewhat inconsistently (e.g., `run_publisher_revenue_audit` vs `get_publisher_revenue_audit_checklist`), and some tool names feel a bit verbose, but overall patterns are recognizable.
With 40 tools, the server covers a massive surface area including signup, activation, reporting, and auditing. While each tool has a specific purpose, the number feels somewhat bloated for a single server, suggesting it could be split into more focused sub-servers (e.g., `sulvo-signup`, `sulvo-reporting`). It is on the high end of 'appropriate'.
The tool set appears very complete for the Sulvo ecosystem, covering everything from account creation (`create_sulvo_signup_account`) to auditing (`run_agentic_readiness_audit`) and activation (`submit_sulvo_activation_workspace`). The only minor gap is the lack of a direct way to start signup beyond step 1, but this is documented as an API limitation, not a tool gap.
