AgentAegis

ssl_tls_audit

Assess SSL/TLS configuration of a domain, identifying weak ciphers, expired certificates, and protocol vulnerabilities.

Instructions

Audit SSL/TLS configuration for a domain.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "hostname": "<hostname>"
    },
    "name": "ssl_tls_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`port`	No
`hostname`	Yes
`previous_scan_id`	No	Optional. A prior scan_id (from agent_history) to record as this call's parent — builds a traversable chained-workflow lineage retrievable via agent_scan_get. Must be one of your own scans; ignored otherwise. Does not change this tool's analysis.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Audit'. It does not mention whether network requests are made, if it is read-only, what output to expect, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded but lacks depth; however, for brevity it earns a high score as every word contributes to purpose clarity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 3 parameters (including an optional ID), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. An agent would lack understanding of return format, effects, and how to use the optional parameter effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is low (33%) and the description adds no parameter information. While the schema includes a description for 'previous_scan_id', the tool description itself does not clarify the meaning or usage of any parameter, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool audits SSL/TLS configuration for a domain, using specific verb and resource. Among sibling tools like 'dns_security_check' and 'email_security_audit', this one uniquely targets SSL/TLS, making differentiation clear.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the action without context of appropriate usage scenarios.

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