Retrieve detailed TLS certificate information for a domain, including fingerprint, SANs, and issuer chain, to verify configuration and inspect trust details.
Get detailed certificate information for a domain including fingerprint, SANs, and issuer chain
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | Domain to inspect | |
| port | No | Port (default: 443) |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned content (fingerprint, SANs, issuer chain), which is useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about making a live TLS connection, timeout/failure behavior on unreachable hosts, or rate limits.
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 no filler or redundancy. It is arguably too sparse for a network-facing tool, but as a structural matter it wastes nothing.
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?
Without an output schema, the description should describe return shape; it partially does via the field enumeration. However, it omits disambiguation from near-identical siblings and any failure/edge-case behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.
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% — both 'host' and 'port' (default 443) are documented in the schema. The description adds only the implicit notion of 'domain' as the host, which is baseline at best.
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 ('Get detailed certificate information for a domain') plus the fields returned (fingerprint, SANs, issuer chain). It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as ssl_inspector__inspect_ssl or check_cert_expiry, so an agent cannot tell from the description which of the three to pick.
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 guidance on when to use this versus inspect_ssl, inspect_ssl_bulk, or check_cert_expiry, and no prerequisites (e.g. reachable host, port open) are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.