SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Recent TLS certificates logged for a domain: issuer

agent_intel_ssl_certificate_transparency

Read-only

Recent TLS certificates logged for a domain (Certificate Transparency via Cert Spotter's public index): issuer, validity dates, names on the certificate, and any name outside the domain. Shows the 10 newest; does not check revocation or the live server's certificate chain. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "agent_intel_ssl_certificate_transparency"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain such as example.org (a URL is reduced to its host)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`count`	No
`domain`	No
`source`	No
`flagged`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`certificates`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover read-only and open-world, so the description carries the meaningful extra burden and does: a hard 10-record limit, no revocation lookup, no live chain fetch, and a full cost model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failed calls free). The billing terms are exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by returned fields, then limits, then pricing — no filler sentences. Even the pricing sentence earns its place by stating cost and the no-charge-on-failure rule.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape is covered elsewhere; annotations cover safety. What remains — data source, result cap, what is not checked, and the payment mechanism — is all stated. Nothing needed to select or call this tool correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including that a URL is reduced to its host. The description adds no further detail on accepted domain forms, punycode/IDN handling, or subdomain behavior. With the schema doing the work, the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and verb: recent TLS certificates logged for a domain, with the data source (Certificate Transparency via Cert Spotter's public index) and the exact fields returned (issuer, validity dates, names, out-of-domain names). It also bounds the scope by saying it does not check revocation or the live server's certificate chain, which implicitly separates it from live-TLS/inspection tools. It never names a specific sibling (e.g. dnssec_trust_chain_validator or subdomain_takeover_monitor) to route against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is clear from 'logged for a domain' plus the explicit exclusion of revocation status and the live server's certificate chain, which tells an agent when this tool is the wrong pick. The '10 newest' cap also sets expectations about result scope. No alternative tool is named for the excluded cases (checking a live chain, revocation), so it is clear context without a routing destination.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?