mcp-1panel-plus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get SSL Certificate Metadata

get_ssl_metadata

Read-only

Retrieves safe metadata for one SSL certificate on a selected node, excluding private keys, PEM contents, and DNS provider secrets.

Instructions

Read safe metadata for a single SSL certificate ID on the selected node. Private keys, PEM contents, and DNS provider secrets are excluded.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ssl_id": "<ssl_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_ssl_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`nodeId`	No	Target node ID: "local" for the Main Node, or a numeric string ID (e.g. "3") from list_nodes.	local
`ssl_id`	Yes	Numeric SSL certificate ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by naming the sensitive field classes that are excluded (private keys, PEM contents, DNS provider secrets), which an agent could not infer. It stops short of describing the shape of what is returned, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, followed by the exclusion note. Nothing is wasted and no restatement of the title or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should convey what 'metadata' comprises. It only enumerates what is excluded, leaving the agent unable to predict whether it gets issuance date, expiry, SANs, issuer, or status.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with nodeId and ssl_id fully documented in the schema, including the 'local' default and numeric-string pattern. The description contributes nothing about either parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read safe metadata for a single SSL certificate ID on the selected node'), which is clearly distinguishable from write siblings like create_ssl. It does not name list_ssls or otherwise explain how this relates to the listing sibling, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never points the agent to list_ssls for discovering ssl_ids, nor explains any precondition such as needing a valid node reference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.