Inspect TLS configuration for multiple domains in parallel to find weak protocols, ciphers, and misconfigurations.
Inspect TLS configuration for multiple domains in parallel
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No | Port to use for all domains (default: 443) | |
| hosts | Yes | List of domain names to inspect | |
| probes | No | Run the legacy-protocol and weak-cipher probes for each domain (default: false; 8 extra handshakes per domain) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that inspection runs in parallel; it says nothing about rate limits or throttling, timeouts, what happens when some domains fail DNS/connect, or whether results are partial. For a bulk network tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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 zero filler — the core action and the batch scope come first. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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?
This is a multi-host network operation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is one line. It omits how per-domain failures surface, whether output is aggregated or ordered, concurrency limits, and timeout behavior — all things an agent needs before committing to a bulk call.
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 100%: hosts, port, and probes are each documented in the schema, including the probe cost (8 extra handshakes per domain). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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 (inspect TLS configuration) plus the scope modifier 'multiple domains in parallel', which distinguishes it from the single-domain sibling ssl_inspector__inspect_ssl. It never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.
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 when-to-use guidance, no alternative named, no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer from the function name that this is the batch counterpart to inspect_ssl, and gets no guidance on when parallel bulk inspection is preferable to per-domain calls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.