Check the SSL/TLS certificate for a domain. Returns issuer, expiry date, days until expiry, certificate chain validity, cipher strength, SAN domains, fingerprint, and TLS protocol version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to check SSL certificate for (e.g. github.com) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists output fields, which reveals the tool's read-type behavior, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, makes network requests, or any other side effects. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description omits safety assurances.
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 description is a single well-structured sentence that leads with the action and then lists key return fields. It is concise and information-dense with no wasted words.
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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema; the description compensates by enumerating the returned data (issuer, expiry, chain validity, etc.). This provides useful context, though it omits potential error scenarios or network behavior.
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?
The input schema already fully documents the single 'domain' parameter with an example. The description adds little beyond the schema, listing return values but not giving extra detail about the parameter itself, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's function as checking SSL/TLS certificates for a domain and enumerates the specific data returned, distinguishing it from broader tools like security_scan, but it does not explicitly reference sibling tools. This gives clear purpose but lacks explicit differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as my_certificates or security_scan. The description simply states what it does without any contextual or exclusionary instructions.
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.
Tools have mostly distinct purposes, e.g., dns_lookup vs dns_record vs dns_propagation are different operations. A few overlaps like bimi_check versus bimi_vmc and dns_lookup versus dns_record could cause slight confusion, but descriptions are clear enough.
All tools use snake_case with consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., dns_lookup, bimi_check, uptime_check). The my_* prefix for account-specific tools provides a clear sub-pattern. No mixed conventions.
23 tools is somewhat high but justified for a DNS/domain monitoring server covering lookups, health checks, security, SSL, RDAP, BIMI, uptime, and account management. Each tool adds distinct value, though a few could be merged.
Covers DNS, SSL, security, hosting, BIMI, RDAP, and account monitoring comprehensively. Minor gaps: no direct WHOIS (RDAP covers registration) and no DNS record modification tools (read-only focus). Overall well-rounded.
