lucky_list_certsList SSL certificate names, domains, and expiry dates in a compact view. Inspect certificate details securely, without exposing PEM material.
List SSL certificates in compact form (name, domains, expiry). PEM material is never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint: PEM material is never returned, which is not captured in annotations and helps agents avoid expecting full certificate data. This provides useful context beyond the structured hints.
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 sentence that is dense with information: lists the fields returned and explicitly denies PEM return. No wasted words, and the most important scoping detail (no PEM) is included.
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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers the return contents (name, domains, expiry) and the key limitation (no PEM). Since there is no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. Minor details like sorting or pagination are not mentioned, but the tool's simplicity makes them non-critical.
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 schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description correctly avoids mentioning parameters, and since none exist, the baseline of 4 applies. No additional parameter semantics are needed.
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 verb 'List', the resource 'SSL certificates', and the scope 'compact form (name, domains, expiry)'. It also explicitly notes what is not returned (PEM material), which differentiates it from related tools like lucky_get_cert that may return full certificate details.
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 usage for retrieving a compact certificate list but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like lucky_get_cert. It does not provide exclusions or direct routing guidance, leaving the context to be inferred from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.