Inspect SSL/TLS certificate details for a domain. Returns certificate issuer, expiration date, subject alternative names (SANs), key strength, and certificate chain validation status. Use for security audits, certificate renewal tracking, or compliance verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to check SSL certificate (e.g. 'example.com', 'api.example.com') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to emphasize safety. It adds valuable behavioral context by detailing exactly what the tool inspects and returns (issuer, expiration, SANs, key strength, chain status), which goes beyond the basic annotation. However, it does not mention potential network timeouts or rate limits, but given the read-only nature and existing annotations, this is sufficient.
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 concise, containing two sentences: the first states the function and return content, the second lists use cases. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns. It covers purpose, return values, and typical use scenarios, making it complete enough for an agent to decide to use it and understand outcomes.
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 provides a complete description of the 'domain' parameter with an example, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra parameter-level details beyond what is in the schema, landing at the baseline of 3.
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 'Inspect SSL/TLS certificate details for a domain' with a specific verb and resource, and lists concrete return details like issuer, expiration, SANs, key strength, and chain validation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_dns or lookup_whois which target different resources.
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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use for security audits, certificate renewal tracking, or compliance verification.' It suggests when to use the tool but does not mention when not to use it or explicitly reference alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of web analysis: DNS records, SSL certificates, website crawling, technology detection, and WHOIS data. There is no overlap in purpose, so an agent can easily select the right tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_dns, check_ssl, crawl_website, detect_tech_stack, lookup_whois. The verbs and nouns are clear and consistently formatted with underscores.
Five tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool serves a distinct, necessary function for the server's stated purpose. The toolset feels cohesive and neither bloated nor sparse.
The toolset covers core web analysis domains: DNS, SSL, crawling, tech stack, and WHOIS. Minor gaps exist, such as missing page speed or robots.txt analysis, but these are not critical for basic SEO and web analysis workflows.