certificate_expiryFind expired certificates or those expiring within a set number of days, with an optional result limit, for local Windows and Linux hosts.
Return certificates already expired or expiring within the requested window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| withinDays | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| certificates | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral scope by clarifying that only expired/expiring certificates are returned. It does not mention default behavior when `withinDays` is omitted or that `limit` caps results, so it adds moderate context beyond annotations.
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 that states the operation and its filter condition with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple query tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with zero schema description coverage, the description leaves `limit` undefined and does not specify a default or behavior when `withinDays` is omitted, leaving a notable gap for correct invocation.
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% and only one parameter is loosely reflected in the description via 'requested window' (withinDays). The `limit` parameter is not addressed at all, and no defaults, units, or caps are explained. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more fully but does not.
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 ('Return') and resource ('certificates') with a clear scope: expired or expiring within a window. It distinguishes the filtering behavior from a generic inventory, but does not name the sibling tool `certificate_inventory`, so sibling differentiation is implicit 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?
Usage is implied by the description: use this to find certificates needing attention based on expiration. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the related `certificate_inventory` sibling, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.