Inspect a host's TLS certificate to verify validity, expiry, issuer, SANs, and cipher, helping identify misconfigurations during authorized security checks.
Inspect a host's TLS certificate: validity, expiry, issuer, SANs, cipher.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | ||
| port | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals what data is returned (validity, expiry, issuer, SANs, cipher) but says nothing about network reachability, timeout/failure behavior for unreachable hosts or invalid certs, or whether the call is strictly read-only.
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 with the resource and output fields front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of being a fragment, but every word carries information.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description should cover failure modes, port behavior, and return structure. It lists the inspected fields, which partly substitutes for a return spec, but leaves an agent without guidance on connectivity requirements, errors, or parameter usage.
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 must explain host and port, yet neither parameter is mentioned. Only an indirect hint exists via "a host's TLS certificate"; the port default of 443 is left entirely to the schema with no guidance on when to override it.
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?
States a specific verb (Inspect) and resource (host's TLS certificate) and enumerates the returned fields: validity, expiry, issuer, SANs, cipher. This clearly separates it from siblings like check_http_security_headers or scan_ports, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the name and the listed certificate fields; there is no statement of when to choose this over check_http_security_headers or scan_ports, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.