Skip to main content
Glama

certdesk

by dev.certdesk
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

check_expiry

Read-only

Verdict for up to 5 domains at once: status OK | WARN | CRITICAL | UNKNOWN per domain combining the served certificate (verification, days left — null when the server cannot be measured) and domain registration expiry (RDAP), plus Korean alert lines. Use this for inventories, CI gates (fail unless status is OK) and periodic checks.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainsYesDomain names
critDaysNoDays before expiry that count as CRITICAL "expiring soon" (default 15; must be < warnDays)
warnDaysNoDays before expiry that count as WARN (default 30; the default shrinks for short-lived certificates)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultsYes
checkedAtNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / critDays
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Days before expiry that count as CRITICAL \"expiring soon\" (default 15; must be < warnDays)",
+  "maximum": 365,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / warnDays
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Days before expiry that count as WARN (default 30; the default shrinks for short-lived certificates)",
+  "maximum": 365,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "checkedAt": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "domain": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "headline": {
+            "description": "One-line verdict (Korean)",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "reasons": {
+            "items": {
+              "properties": {
+                "code": {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "message": {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "messageEn": {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "severity": {
+                  "type": "string"
+                }
+              },
+              "required": [
+                "code",
+                "severity"
+              ],
+              "type": "object"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "description": "UNKNOWN = could not be measured (never treat as OK)",
+            "enum": [
+              "OK",
+              "WARN",
+              "CRITICAL",
+              "UNKNOWN"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "domain",
+          "status",
+          "headline",
+          "reasons"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "results"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds useful behavior: it discloses the per-domain status set, the null days-left case when the server cannot be measured, and that Korean alert lines are included. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes when RDAP lookups time out, which would complete the picture.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the verdict/status definition leads, then the data sources, then usage cases. It is dense but every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, and the description adequately covers what the tool does, its inputs' meaning, and when to use it. A brief note on partial failures (e.g. some domains UNKNOWN because RDAP is unreachable) would make it fully complete for a multi-domain batch tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents domains, critDays, and warnDays. The description reinforces the domain cap ('up to 5 domains at once') and links the WARN/CRITICAL vocabulary back to the warnDays/critDays parameters, adding meaning beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Verdict for up to 5 domains at once') with an explicit output vocabulary (OK | WARN | CRITICAL | UNKNOWN) and names the two data sources it combines (served certificate + RDAP registration). This clearly separates it from siblings like check_certificate (single-cert only) and watch_expiry (ongoing monitoring).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete usage contexts: inventories, CI gates (fail unless status is OK), and periodic checks. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as watch_expiry for continuous monitoring, so an agent must still infer the boundary between one-shot checks and ongoing watching.

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

All certdesk toolsInspect
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.

Resources