security_tlsLive TLS handshake: cert validity, issuer, expiry countdown. $0.01 per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Hostname to probe over TLS on port 443, without scheme (e.g. example.com) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool performs a live network handshake (real-time external state dependency) and that each call costs $0.01 — useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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?
A single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Live TLS handshake') followed by concrete outputs and pricing. No wasted words; every element earns its place.
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 one-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it lists the key returned data (validity, issuer, expiry countdown) and notes the cost. It does not describe error handling or exact response structure, but these are minor given the simplicity of the tool.
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% for the single parameter 'domain', which already specifies a hostname without scheme and port 443. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only references the domain implicitly through the handshake context. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full parameter load.
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 action ('Live TLS handshake') and the exact outputs (cert validity, issuer, expiry countdown). The resource is clear — a TLS certificate check — and the tool is easily distinguished from siblings like security_email or security_typosquat.
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?
The description implies the use case: whenever a live TLS certificate check is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or route to siblings like security_email for different security checks.
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.
Most tools are cleanly separated by domain prefix (data_, security_, validate_, verify_) and describe distinct outputs. A couple of pairs like token_verdict vs verify_token or data_portfolio vs wallet_dossier could be confused until descriptions are read, but the descriptions resolve the ambiguity.
The majority of tools follow a predictable prefix_subject pattern, e.g. data_block, security_tls, validate_iban, verify_payment. A few outliers like html_to_markdown, text_diff, wallet_dossier, and token_verdict use different conventions, but the overall system remains readable.
20 tools is on the heavy side for the typical MCP server and sits in the 16–25 'feels heavy' zone. Most tools have a legitimate purpose, but the five validate_* identifier tools plus two generic utilities could feel like surface area bloat.
The server covers a broad and coherent read/validation domain: chain data, token safety, payments, security checks, and identifier validators. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of detailed historical transaction/activity data and no general network/domain security scan beyond email, TLS, and typosquat.