TLS Radar

add_monitor

Idempotent

Add a domain to ongoing certificate monitoring with expiry alerts. Requires authentication (the user runs /mcp once). If the plan's monitor limit is reached, the response's structuredContent carries a limit-reached payload - when relaying it, LEAD with recommended_upgrade (it carries the plan name and price), mention also_available tiers in a single closing line, and offer removing an existing monitor as the free alternative. Don't dump a full tier comparison; that's choice paralysis at the moment of action.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "add_monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Hostname to monitor (e.g. example.com). No scheme, no path.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	No
`host_id`	No
`team_id`	No
`scan_group_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedJun 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial context the annotations do not carry: the authentication prerequisite, the existence of a plan monitor limit, and the specific shape of the limit-reached payload in structuredContent (recommended_upgrade, also_available). The annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description complements rather than repeats them, though it spends more words on relaying style than on the success path.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence front-loads purpose and the auth prerequisite. The second paragraph is longer than needed for one edge case and mixes agent-facing formatting instructions with tool behavior, but every clause is actionable rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still flags the one non-obvious response case (limit reached) plus the auth prerequisite. For a one-parameter mutation with annotations and an output schema, that is close to complete; the missing piece is what happens to a domain already under monitoring.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter already documents the hostname format ('No scheme, no path'). The description adds no syntax, normalization, or validation detail beyond that, so the schema does all the work and the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Add a domain to ongoing certificate monitoring with expiry alerts.' That distinguishes it from scan_domain (one-off check) and list_monitors by implication, but it never explicitly contrasts with the near-identical sibling add_monitors (plural), leaving the single-vs-bulk choice to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives real context (requires an authenticated session; what to do when the plan limit is hit), but never says when to pick this tool over add_monitors for batch enrollment or scan_domain for a one-off check. Usage is implied rather than stated against alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All TLS Radar tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.