解析 CSR(PEM / base64-DER / 裸 DER):Subject、公钥算法、SAN、请求扩展、SPKI 指纹、自签名完整性校验。
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": {
"csr": "<csr>"
},
"name": "csr.decode"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| csr | Yes | CSR 内容:PEM 文本 / base64-DER / 裸 DER |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a self-signed integrity check is performed and lists accepted input formats, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, describe error behavior, or clarify what the returned structure looks like.
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?
The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited list of outputs. It is dense and efficient, though the list-like structure is slightly terse.
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?
For a simple single-parameter parse tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the key pieces of information returned. It still omits return structure and error handling details, but covers the essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single 'csr' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the accepted formats (PEM / base64-DER / raw DER) without adding syntax or format details beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('解析') and resource ('CSR') and enumerates exactly what is extracted (Subject, public key algorithm, SAN, request extensions, SPKI fingerprint, self-signed integrity check). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like cert.decode, but the CSR resource makes the scope distinct.
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?
There is no sentence describing when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cert.decode for certificates, csr.generate for creation). Usage is only implied by the tool name and description; no exclusions or prerequisites are given.
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.