lucky_add_custom_certUpload a custom certificate and private key to Lucky to secure specified domains with HTTPS, providing an alternative when Let's Encrypt certificates are not available.
Upload a custom certificate and private key to Lucky. Prefer lucky_bind_cert for Let's Encrypt certs that already exist in Lucky.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| domains | Yes | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| key_pem | Yes | ||
| cert_pem | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as whether the certificate is validated, whether it overwrites existing certs, or any permission requirements. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but credit for additional context is minimal.
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 two sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the alternative guidance follows immediately. Every word contributes to agent decision-making.
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 5 params, no output schema, and no param documentation. The description covers the core purpose and sibling distinction, but omits practical details such as response behavior, whether the upload replaces an existing cert with the same name, or any validation caveats. For a write operation, this information would be valuable, but the tool is simple enough that a basic upload intent is clear.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. However, the description does not mention any parameter details. While parameter names like name, domains, cert_pem, key_pem, and enabled are self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, especially for optional parameters like enabled.
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 action ('Upload a custom certificate and private key to Lucky') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from lucky_bind_cert by explicitly naming the alternative, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides explicit routing: 'Prefer lucky_bind_cert for Let's Encrypt certs that already exist in Lucky.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and which alternative to choose, satisfying the when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.