Add multiple domains to monitoring in one call. Returns a per-domain status so the caller can show partial-success outcomes. Honors the same plan-limit checks as add_monitor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domains | Yes | List of hostnames to monitor |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| added | Yes | ||
| results | Yes | Per-domain add status. | |
| team_id | No | ||
| requested | Yes | ||
| scan_group_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as partial-success outcomes and plan-limit checks. However, it does not clarify idempotency, which may cause confusion given the idempotentHint annotation.
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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary elaboration.
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's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers key aspects: action, return behavior, and constraints. It lacks details on duplicate handling but is largely complete.
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 schema already describes the 'domains' parameter as 'List of hostnames to monitor' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond restating the action.
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's function: adding multiple domains to monitoring in one call. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'add_monitor' by emphasizing the batch aspect and returns per-domain status.
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 implies when to use this tool (for multiple domains) by noting 'in one call' and referencing 'add_monitor' for plan-limit checks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative scenarios.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct but some overlap exists between add_monitor/add_monitors (batch vs single) and export_monitors/list_monitors (export vs list). Descriptions help disambiguate, but an agent might initially confuse export_monitors with list_monitors.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., add_monitor, create_certificate, list_monitors). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
17 tools is reasonable for a TLS monitoring and certificate management server. Each tool serves a distinct function without significant bloat, though the deprecated register_beacon_order could be removed.
Covers core CRUD for monitors, certificate lifecycle (create, check propagation, finalize, renew, status, scan), account info, and team invites. Minor gaps: no batch remove_monitors, no monitor update, and no detailed certificate inspection beyond status.
