Inspect a host's TLS certificate to retrieve subject, SANs, issuer, expiry date, days remaining, and grade, helping diagnose SSL/TLS configuration and expiration issues.
TLS cert inspection: subject, SANs, issuer, expiry, daysLeft, grade.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | ||
| port | No | ||
| timeoutMs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the returned fields, which is genuinely useful with no output schema present. However, it says nothing about live network connection behavior, failure modes for expired or self-signed certs, or how the 'grade' is computed.
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 compact clause with the resource type front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the fragment style leaves little room for the missing guidance.
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?
Listing the returned fields partly compensates for the absent output schema, but with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter descriptions, an agent still lacks enough to invoke it confidently against the wrong port or interpret failures.
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% across three parameters: host, port, and timeoutMs are all undocumented in the schema. The description implies host/port via 'TLS cert inspection' but never explains the port default of 443 or what timeoutMs controls, so it only partially compensates.
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?
Names a specific resource and operation ('TLS cert inspection') and enumerates what the result contains (subject, SANs, issuer, expiry, daysLeft, grade). It is distinguishable from siblings like net.httpcheck or net.portcheck, though it is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a stated verb.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus net.httpcheck, net.portcheck, or net.health, and no mention of prerequisites such as the target needing to serve TLS on the given port. The agent must infer all invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.