Agent Weather

TLS certificate window (paid: 0.001 RLUSD / 0.001 USDC on Base / 0.001 RLUSD on Base via x402)

tls_window

Read-only

Paid: 0.001 RLUSD per call via x402 on XRPL mainnet (xrpl:0), or 0.001 USDC on Base (eip155:8453). Pay per call, solves one question: What validity-window fields does this host's TLS certificate present? Raw leaf-certificate fields (subject, issuer, not_before, not_after, SANs, serial, fingerprint, TLS version) from one handshake on port 443, with source and observed_at. Public hostnames only; chain is not validated or graded; no verdict. Without payment this returns isError with the x402 PaymentRequired object (fresh invoiceId); retry with the signed payload in _meta["x402/payment"] or the payment_signature argument. Unpaid calls cost nothing.

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": {
      "host": "<host>"
    },
    "name": "tls_window"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes	public hostname, e.g. example.com (port 443 only)
`payment_signature`	No	Optional. Base64 x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE value (signed RLUSD or USDC PaymentPayload) for hosts that cannot set _meta["x402/payment"]. Omit on the first call to receive the payment requirements.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover safety/idempotency, and the description adds substantial behavior: the exact field set returned, that no grading/validation occurs, that failure yields isError with a PaymentRequired object carrying a fresh invoiceId, and that unpaid calls are free. It also documents both payment channels (x402 _meta vs. payment_signature argument).

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?

Front-loads the paid-x402 terms, then the purpose, then the return fields and failure mode — a sensible order with no filler. Slight redundancy between the title's pricing and the body's pricing, but every sentence carries operational information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned leaf-certificate fields plus source and observed_at. Combined with the error/payment path, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret both success and failure.

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 baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by clarifying that host is 443-only and public, and by explaining the payment_signature lifecycle ('Omit on the first call to receive the payment requirements'). That is real value beyond the schema text.

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 ('Raw leaf-certificate fields ... from one handshake on port 443') and frames the single question it answers, so scope is unambiguous. It also draws a boundary ('chain is not validated or graded; no verdict'), which lets an agent distinguish it from any certificate-validation tool.

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 explicit when-to-use ('solves one question: What validity-window fields does this host's TLS certificate present?') and limits ('Public hostnames only', port 443). It also spells out the two-step payment flow and when to omit payment_signature. No named sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Agent Weather 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.

Resources

Need Help?