SiteCheck Web Intel

For a domain's current certificate: reads its CRL

security_cert_revocation_crl

Read-only

For a domain's current certificate (taken from public Certificate Transparency data via CertSpotter): reads its CRL Distribution Point, downloads that public CRL, and reports whether the certificate's serial number is on it, plus the CRL's thisUpdate and nextUpdate. OCSP is not queried. Revocation status is as of the CRL's publication time. Related tools on this server, for a different need: security_ssl_cert_chain when you need HTTPS certificate chain and cipher audit for a host. 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": "security_cert_revocation_crl"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain name such as wikipedia.org (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`crlUrl`	No
`domain`	No
`source`	No
`revoked`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`crlEntries`	No
`certificate`	No
`crlNextUpdate`	No
`crlThisUpdate`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the real burden and does well: it discloses the data source (public Certificate Transparency via CertSpotter), that a public CRL is downloaded, the exact fields returned, and the freshness caveat about thisUpdate/nextUpdate. It also discloses cost behavior ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failures not charged), which is valuable and not inferable from annotations; only minor gaps remain around CRL fetch failures or missing CDP.

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?

Information is front-loaded: the action comes first, then the OCSP and freshness caveats, then sibling routing and pricing. It is dense with parentheticals and pricing text, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant content, so little is wasted.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers source of data, returned fields, freshness semantics, the OCSP exclusion, a sibling alternative, and payment terms. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single domain parameter is documented with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description still adds meaning by explaining how the domain is used (to locate the current certificate via Certificate Transparency) rather than accepting a certificate or URL directly, which is not obvious from the parameter name.

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 chain (reads the CRL Distribution Point, downloads the CRL, reports whether the serial is listed) tied to a specific resource (a domain's current certificate). It also explicitly rules out OCSP and names a sibling tool, so the agent can distinguish it from adjacent security tools without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is scoped precisely: use it for revocation status of the domain's current certificate, with the explicit note that OCSP is not queried and status is only as of the CRL's publication time. It also routes the agent elsewhere by naming security_ssl_cert_chain for the different need of HTTPS chain and cipher audit.

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

All SiteCheck Web Intel 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?