Skip to main content
Glama

TLS Radar

by com.tlsradar

register_beacon_order

Idempotent

OBSOLETE - do not call. The cert→monitoring handoff is server-side now (issue via create_certificate, which records the order itself). This tool is kept only so old plugin versions that still call it don't error; it remains idempotent and harmless.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesContact email the user gave Beacon
domainYesDomain the cert was requested for
order_idYesThe order_id from beacon.create_order
webhook_secretNoPer-order HMAC secret Beacon returned (used to verify the subsequent webhook). Optional - without it, this server can't verify webhooks for the order and will drop them.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
order_idYes
registeredYes
has_webhook_secretNo

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that the tool is kept only for backward compatibility, that it is idempotent and harmless. This aligns with the idempotentHint annotation and adds critical deprecation context 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence immediately communicates the key message (obsolete, do not call), followed by concise explanation and alternative. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 the tool's deprecated nature, the description is fully complete: it states obsolescence, reason, alternative, and behavioral guarantees. It covers all necessary context for an agent to decide against using this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 the tool is obsolete and should not be called. It explains the replacement (create_certificate) and the reason for its existence (backward compatibility). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 'do not call' and provides the correct alternative (issue via create_certificate). This is the highest level of usage guidance, including explicit when-not-to-use and 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 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