Checks SSL/TLS certificate expiry for one or more domains and flags certificates expiring within a configurable warning period so you can renew them before outages.
Check certificate expiry for one or more domains and highlight certificates expiring soon
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hosts | Yes | Domain names to check | |
| warnDays | No | Warn if expiring within this many days (default: 30) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about live network connections, timeouts, rate limits, behavior on unreachable hosts, or partial failure across multiple domains. 'Highlight certificates expiring soon' hints at result shaping but is not explained.
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 front-loaded sentence with the scope and the threshold-highlighting behavior stated first; no filler. Slightly compressed to the point of underspecification rather than maximally informative.
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 must explain return shape and multi-host failure handling, and it does not. Adequate for identifying the tool, insufficient for predicting what an agent will get back from a bulk check.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented, including the warnDays default of 30. The description does not add syntax or semantics beyond 'one or more domains' and the vague 'expiring soon', so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Check certificate expiry for one or more domains') plus the added signal of flagging near-expiry certs. It is not explicitly distinguished from sibling ssl_inspector__get_cert_info or inspect_ssl, though the expiry-only focus is implied.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of when to prefer this over get_cert_info or inspect_ssl_bulk. The domain-expiry framing implies usage but leaves alternative selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.