IA-QA — 152 QA & Dev Tools for AI Agents

ssl_certificate_check

Read-only

Analyse the SSL/TLS certificate of any HTTPS host. Returns certificate subject, issuer, validity dates, days until expiry, protocol version, cipher suite, key exchange info, and an overall grade (A+, A, B, C, F). Detects expired, self-signed, and weak certificates. Use this to audit TLS posture before production deployment or during security reviews.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes	Hostname to check (e.g. example.com). Do not include https:// prefix.
`port`	No	Port number (default: 443)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	No
`grade`	No
`cipher`	No
`issuer`	No
`issues`	No
`subject`	No
`protocol`	No
`valid_to`	No
`is_expired`	No
`valid_from`	No
`is_self_signed`	No
`days_until_expiry`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 31, 2026
- addedInput schema / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "host": "www.ia-qa.com"
+  }
+]
```

Changed1 schema field changedJun 21, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "cipher": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "days_until_expiry": {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "grade": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "host": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "is_expired": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "is_self_signed": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "issuer": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "issues": {
+    "items": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  "protocol": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "subject": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "valid_from": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "valid_to": {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

Changed1 schema field changedJun 10, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing what is inspected (subject, issuer, expiry, protocol, cipher, key exchange) and what defects are detected. It omits failure behavior for unreachable hosts, non-HTTPS targets, or timeouts, which matters for an open-world network call.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with the purpose first and the usage cue last; nothing is filler. The return-field enumeration partially duplicates the output schema, which is mild redundancy but still aids tool selection.

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 values are already structured, and annotations cover safety; the description fills in the audit intent and defect detection. The only gap is error/edge-case behavior (invalid host, connection failure), which an agent would want before calling against arbitrary hosts.

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% and both parameters (host, port) are documented in the schema including the no-https-prefix constraint and the 443 default. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Analyse the SSL/TLS certificate of any HTTPS host') and enumerates the returned fields and grading scale, which cleanly separates it from siblings like security_headers_check or web_security_audit. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 ('before production deployment or during security reviews'), which is clear guidance on when to reach for it. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing at a specific alternative sibling, so it is not a full 5.

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

All IA-QA — 152 QA & Dev Tools for AI Agents 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.