Skip to main content
Glama

TLS Radar

by com.tlsradar

finalize_certificate

Idempotent

Finalize and issue a certificate order in one call: validates the DNS challenges, waits for Let's Encrypt, and returns the issued cert. Step 3 of issuance - call after check_certificate_propagation reports all_found. STRONGLY PREFER passing csr_pem (generate the key + CSR locally with openssl so the private key never leaves the machine). Returns leaf_pem/chain_pem/fullchain_pem. If you must, pass a passphrase instead to get a PKCS#12 bundle - but a CSR is safer. If it replies "still validating", DNS hasn't fully propagated: re-check check_certificate_propagation and call again. Needs a locally-generated CSR (csr_pem) - requires a local shell with openssl. On a surface without one (e.g. a Claude.ai custom connector) this can't complete; it returns guidance to finish in Claude Code/Cowork or the web form. Scanning and monitoring work everywhere. On success the structuredContent carries a handoff object - relay handoff.message to the user and do NOT separately call add_monitor; the cert→monitoring handoff is automatic and server-side.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
csr_pemNoPEM CERTIFICATE REQUEST covering exactly {domain, www.domain}. Preferred - key stays local.
order_idYesThe order_id from create_certificate.
passphraseNoFallback only: ≥8 chars, protects a returned PKCS#12 bundle. Omit when using csr_pem.
resume_tokenNoOptional. The resume_token from create_certificate; pass it to finalize an order whose row Beacon already purged (~24h).
max_wait_secondsNoHow long to wait for validation server-side. Default 60, capped at 75.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNo
stateNo
handoffNoCert->monitoring handoff; relay handoff.message and do not call add_monitor.
leaf_pemNo
chain_pemNo
not_afterNo
fullchain_pemNoFull certificate chain (PEM), present on success.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses DNS validation, waiting behavior, return fields, idempotency, error handling for propagation delays, automatic handoff to monitoring, and surface limitations. Complements annotations that already indicate non-read-only and idempotent.

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 with main purpose, workflow step, preferences, error handling, limitations, and handoff note. Slightly wordy but every sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly while preserving all information.

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?

Given 5 parameters, output schema, and many sibling tools, the description covers workflow, error conditions, environment constraints, return values, and automatic handoff. Leaves no major gaps for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

Adds rich context beyond the schema: explains csr_pem domain coverage and key safety, passphrase as fallback with constraints, resume_token purpose and expiry, max_wait_seconds default and cap. Schema coverage is 100%, yet description still adds significant value.

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?

Clearly states the tool finalizes and issues a certificate order, validates DNS challenges, waits for Let's Encrypt, and returns the certificate. Positions it as Step 3 after check_certificate_propagation, differentiating from siblings.

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 says call after check_certificate_propagation reports all_found, strongly prefers csr_pem over passphrase, explains what to do on 'still validating' response, notes environment limitations, and warns against separately calling add_monitor.

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