zone-mcp

List SSL certificates

list_ssl_certificates

Read-only

Lists SSL certificates for a specified webhosting, including hosts and validity dates; PEM bodies are omitted unless include_pem is true.

Instructions

List the SSL certificates on a webhosting, with their hosts and validity. The PEM certificate bodies are left out unless include_pem is true; private keys are never returned.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vserver`	Yes	Webhosting (virtual server) name, usually its main domain, e.g. 'example.com' (see list_webhostings).
`include_pem`	No	Include the PEM `certificate` and `ca_certificate` (default false; large).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pager`	No	Pagination from the x-pager-* headers; present only on paginated endpoints.
`certificates`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds real behavioral detail: PEM bodies are omitted by default and private keys are never returned. It stops short of mentioning result size behavior or ordering.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed immediately by the sensitive-data caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and full schema description coverage, the description only needs to convey scope and the PEM/private-key caveat, which it does. Minor gaps like ordering or result-size expectations are acceptable for this complexity level.

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%, so the schema already explains both 'vserver' and 'include_pem' (including the 'large' caveat). The description reinforces the include_pem behavior but adds no new syntactic or format meaning beyond it.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List the SSL certificates on a webhosting') and even summarizes the payload ('with their hosts and validity'). No sibling tool overlaps this resource, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The only hints are indirect: the schema's 'vserver' description points the agent at list_webhostings to find a valid value.

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