Visual Sentinel

Change a monitor's SSL, domain and DNS checks

vs_monitors_update_ssl_domain_dns

DestructiveIdempotent

Change how a monitor watches the SSL certificate, the domain registration and DNS records: on or off, reminder days, certificate errors, the www or bare address, and which record types to watch. Only the fields sent change.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "vs_monitors_update_ssl_domain_dns"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Monitor id.
`sslCheck`	No	true watches the SSL certificate.
`dnsEnabled`	No	true watches DNS records for changes.
`dnsRecords`	No	Which DNS record types to watch, for example { "A": true, "MX": false }. While DNS checks are on, types left out keep their setting. When the same call turns DNS checks on, or no types were saved yet, the types set to true are the whole selection.
`sslAlertDays`	No	Days before certificate expiry to send reminders, for example [30, 13, 6, 1].
`sslWarningDays`	No	Days before certificate expiry when the certificate starts to count as expiring (1 to 90).
`domainAlertDays`	No	Days before domain expiry to send reminders: any of 50, 30, 20, 13, 6, 3, 1. An empty list keeps watching without reminders.
`ignoreSslErrors`	No	true lets uptime checks pass even when the certificate is not valid.
`checkOtherAddress`	No	true also watches the other form of the address (with or without www).
`domainExpiryEnabled`	No	true watches the domain registration expiry.
`domainReminderSnoozedUntil`	No	Hold domain expiry reminders until this time (ISO 8601, at most 35 days ahead). null ends the hold.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, open-world update, so the safety burden is partly covered. The description adds useful partial-update semantics with "Only the fields sent change," but does not explain the consequences of disabling checks or other side effects.

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?

The description is two compact sentences, front-loads the affected check areas, and ends with the important partial-update rule. The field enumeration is dense but not wasteful; minor ambiguity in phrases like "certificate errors" keeps it from a 5.

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?

Given 11 parameters with full schema descriptions, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope and partial-update behavior. It could be stronger by mentioning how these settings relate to sibling monitor-update tools or the effect of turning checks off.

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 baseline is 3 even without extra parameter detail in the description. The description groups the settings into SSL, domain, and DNS concepts, but it does not add syntax or parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a specific verb, resource, and scope: changing SSL, domain registration, and DNS monitoring settings for a monitor. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many other monitor update siblings by naming the exact check areas it governs.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use it by listing SSL/domain/DNS settings, and the final sentence clarifies partial-update behavior. However, it gives no explicit routing guidance versus sibling update tools such as vs_monitors_update_basics or vs_monitors_update_check_method, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Visual Sentinel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.