ssl_check
TLS certificate check
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No | ||
| domain | Yes | Hostname |
TLS certificate check
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No | ||
| domain | Yes | Hostname |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / argsRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Tool arguments",
- "properties": {
- "text": {
- "description": "Primary input text",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}Input schema / properties / domainAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Hostname",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / portAdded value: +{
+ "default": 443,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[]New value: +[
+ "domain"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention what the check entails—whether it validates expiry, trust chain, or just establishes a connection—and gives no insight into potential side effects or network usage.
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?
While the description is extremely short, this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. A few key sentences about purpose and behavior would be more valuable than a three-word fragment that adds no information.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of context. It fails to explain what the check returns, how to interpret results, or any prerequisites, making the tool essentially unusable for an AI agent.
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 only 50% (domain has a description, port does not), and the tool description adds zero information about parameters. It does not explain the role of 'domain' or 'port' beyond their raw names, leaving the agent to guess.
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 'TLS certificate check' essentially restates the tool name without specifying any concrete action or output. It lacks a clear verb+resource structure and does not distinguish from sibling tools like dns_lookup or validate_url.
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 guidance on when to use this tool or how it differs from related tools. The description provides no context for selection, such as 'use for checking certificate validity or expiry'.
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.