OpsChugex LocalOps MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Certificate Inventory

certificate_inventory

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inventory certificate metadata and expiry dates on local systems to track renewals; private key material is never read or returned.

Instructions

Inventory bounded certificate metadata and expiry dates. Private key material is never read or returned.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "certificate_inventory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`certificates`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 2, 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context by guaranteeing that private key material is never read or returned, which is a substantive security disclosure beyond annotations, plus the 'bounded' hint that results are capped.

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 short sentences, no waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the security caveat immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the read-only nature is well covered by annotations plus the key-material guarantee. The only real gap is failing to clarify the limit parameter's bounds and the distinction from 'certificate_expiry'.

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?

Only one optional parameter (limit) exists with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only gestures at it with the word 'bounded' without stating the default or the 300 maximum. It adds some meaning but leaves the parameter's behavior underspecified.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inventory') and resource ('certificate metadata and expiry dates'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'certificate_expiry', which overlaps on the expiry-date concept.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the closely related 'certificate_expiry' or 'ssh_key_inventory' siblings. The agent must infer the distinction between a full inventory and an expiry-focused view.

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