UptyBots

Create SSL certificate monitor

create_ssl_monitor

Watch a TLS certificate: whether it is valid, who issued it, and how many days remain before it expires. This is about the certificate, not about the site being reachable - pair it with create_http_monitor when you want both. Note that such a monitor carries two independent states, one for reachability and one for expiry, so a certificate can be days from expiring while the check still reads up.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Domain whose certificate to inspect, for example example.com. No scheme, no path.
`name`	Yes	Label shown in the dashboard and in alerts, up to 50 characters. Something recognisable months later beats the bare hostname.
`isActive`	No	Start monitoring immediately (default true)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Monitor id, used by every other tool.
`url`	No
`name`	No
`type`	No
`isActive`	No	False while the monitor is paused.
`frequency`	No	Check interval in minutes.
`statusSummary`	No	Current state, for example GOOD or ERROR.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds meaningful behavioral nuance beyond the annotations by explaining that the monitor carries two independent states (reachability and expiry), so a certificate can be nearly expired while the check still appears up. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint=false or openWorldHint 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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose, the distinction from HTTP monitoring, and a non-obvious behavioral caveat. No fluff or repetition of schema content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description is complete enough for a create tool with a full output schema and well-covered parameters. It explains the key conceptual caveat and provides usage context, though it does not mention prerequisites or post-creation effect details, which are partly covered by annotations.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters, so the description adds little parameter-level detail. It does give useful context about certificate-focused semantics, but that is not parameter-specific enough to raise the score above the baseline.

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?

Describes exactly what the tool does: watches a TLS certificate for validity, issuer, and days to expiry. It clearly distinguishes itself from HTTP/site-reachability monitoring by explicitly scoping it to the certificate.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative: it is about the certificate, not site reachability, and recommends pairing with create_http_monitor when both aspects are needed. This is strong sibling differentiation.

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

All UptyBots tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The six monitor creation tools are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions (e.g., HTTP vs API vs SSL vs domain), and lifecycle tools like delete, pause, resume, and list are unambiguous. Overlap is minimal and explicitly addressed.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_http_monitor, get_stats_hourly, pause_monitor). No mixed conventions or vague verbs; the pattern is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count4/5

15 tools is on the higher end of the ideal range, but each tool earns its place. The count reflects a comprehensive monitoring surface without unnecessary redundancy. Slightly over the typical sweet spot, but justified by the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers creation, deletion, pause/resume, listing, retrieval, incident history, and two levels of statistics, plus notifications. A notable gap is the absence of an update/edit tool for existing monitors, which agents may need to adjust configurations. Otherwise, the lifecycle is well covered.

Resources

Need Help?