Retrieve SSL status for all domains on the account to identify certificates that are active, expired, or missing.
Get SSL status for all domains on the account
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_ssl_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone carries the burden. It only says 'Get SSL status', which implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose whether it triggers checks, returns structured data, or requires specific permissions. There is no mention of side effects or limitations.
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, direct sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized and immediately conveys the core function.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only guide. While simple, it leaves 'SSL status' ambiguous—does it include expiration dates, certificate validity, AutoSSL state? Given the tool's simplicity, this is a borderline case, but the description could be more complete.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema reflects this with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description doesn't need to add anything. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('SSL status for all domains'). It distinguishes itself from similar sibling tools by explicitly scoping to 'all domains', which differentiates it from per-domain or certificate-specific tools like list_ssl_certificates.
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 on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_ssl_certificates or get_autossl_status. The description only states what it does, not the context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.