Skip to main content
Glama

TLS Radar

by com.tlsradar

create_certificate

Start issuing a FREE 90-day Let's Encrypt certificate for a domain (no account required). Step 1 of 3. Pick a validation method with challenge: "dns-01" (default; publish a TXT record; covers apex + www) or "http-01" (serve a file over HTTP on port 80; issues the exact domain only). dns-01 with a DNS-provider API token is the most automatable; http-01 suits a server you control on port 80. Returns an order_id plus either dns_records (dns-01) or http_files (http-01) to put in place. Next: poll check_certificate_propagation until all_found, then call finalize_certificate. Strongly prefer the CSR path at finalize (the private key never leaves the user's machine). Issuing automatically offers the user ongoing monitoring by email once it completes - don't add a monitor manually afterward.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesContact email for Let's Encrypt expiry notices and the monitoring handoff.
domainYesApex domain, no scheme/www (e.g. example.com).
challengeNoValidation method: dns-01 (default) or http-01.
client_idNoOptional anonymous install id from ~/.config/tlsradar/install_id (funnel attribution). If omitted, the response's install_id is a fresh one to save there.
marketing_consentNoOnly true if the user explicitly opts in to a free account + reminder email. Default false.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
order_idYes
challengeYes
http_filesNoFiles to serve for http-01.
install_idNo
dns_recordsNoTXT records to publish for dns-01.
next_actionNo
resume_tokenNoSigned token to finalize past the backend's order TTL.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description adds context beyond annotations: step in workflow, return values (order_id, dns_records, http_files), and that issuing offers ongoing monitoring by email. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured, front-loaded with main purpose, then details. Slightly long but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Complete for a multi-step issuance tool: covers workflow, return values, next steps, and common pitfalls. Output schema existing reduces need for return details.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 100% schema coverage, description enriches each parameter: explains challenge methods in depth, clarifies email purpose, client_id for attribution, and marketing_consent condition.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it starts issuing a free 90-day Let's Encrypt certificate, specifies it's step 1 of 3, and distinguishes from sibling tools like finalize_certificate and check_certificate_propagation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly explains when to use (first step), provides guidance on selecting challenge method based on use case, and details next steps (poll, then finalize). Also advises against adding monitor manually.

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

All TLS Radar toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources