Return the current state of a certificate order (dns_pending, validating, ready, completed, failed) and per-authorization Let's Encrypt statuses. Use it to resume an interrupted issuance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | The order_id from create_certificate. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | ||
| challenge | No | ||
| fullchain_pem | No | Present once the order is completed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds that it returns specific states and per-authorization statuses, which is consistent and helpful beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states purpose and output, the second gives usage context. Every word earns its place.
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?
With output schema present, return values are covered. The description provides purpose, key usage scenario, and parameter context. Given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, this is fully adequate.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter documented. The description adds value by specifying that the order_id comes from create_certificate, guiding the agent on parameter provenance.
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 explicitly states the tool returns the current state of a certificate order, listing possible states and mentioning per-authorization statuses. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_certificate or finalize_certificate, which are action-oriented.
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 advises to 'Use it to resume an interrupted issuance,' providing a specific context. It does not detail when to avoid or alternatives, but the explicit usage recommendation is strong for a single-use tool.
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.
