Inspect SSL/TLS certificate details for a domain. Returns certificate issuer, expiration date, subject alternative names (SANs), key strength, and certificate chain validation status. Use for security audits, certificate renewal tracking, or compliance verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to check SSL certificate (e.g. 'example.com', 'api.example.com') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only. Description adds specific output details (issuer, expiration, SANs, key strength, chain validation), increasing transparency beyond the annotation's general read-only hint.
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 wasted words, front-loaded with the action. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Fully covers purpose, usage, and return details for a single-parameter tool with good annotations. No gaps given the tool's scope.
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 parameter 'domain' already well-described. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's value.
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?
Description clearly states 'Inspect SSL/TLS certificate details for a domain' and lists specific return fields. It distinctly separates from sibling tools like check_dns (DNS records) and lookup_whois (domain registration).
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?
States use cases: 'security audits, certificate renewal tracking, or compliance verification.' Provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of web analysis: DNS records, SSL certificates, full website crawling, technology stack detection, and WHOIS data. There is no ambiguity in their purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_dns, check_ssl, crawl_website, detect_tech_stack, lookup_whois. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
5 tools is appropriate for a focused SEO and web analysis server. It covers the core areas without being excessive or too thin, though a couple more could be added.
Covers DNS, SSL, crawling, tech stack, and WHOIS, but misses common SEO tools like HTTP header inspection, robots.txt/sitemap analysis, or page speed evaluation. Notable gaps exist.