certindex-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: fetching a single certificate by fingerprint, listing certificates for a domain, finding expiring certs, getting the latest cert, enumerating subdomains, and performing a general search. No ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_certificate, get_domain_certificates). The naming is predictable and clear.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools covering the core operations of a certificate index (fetch, list, search, subdomain enumeration), the count is well-scoped and not excessive.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the main operations expected from a CT log index: retrieval by fingerprint, domain listing, expiry checks, latest cert, subdomain enumeration, and general search. Minor gaps like raw log entry access are not critical for the stated purpose.
Average 3.7/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions enumeration from CT logs and uniqueness, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, response size, or whether results are sorted. The presence of page and limit parameters is not addressed in the description.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No extraneous words or repetition. It is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 absence of annotations and the presence of three parameters with pagination defaults, the description is too brief. It does not cover pagination, result ordering, or what 'unique' means in practice. The tool has an output schema, but without its content, the description remains incomplete for safe invocation.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameters. While parameter names (page, limit, domain) are self-evident, the description adds no additional meaning about their format, constraints, or interaction. For a tool with low schema coverage, this is insufficient.
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 clearly states 'Enumerate unique subdomains seen in CT logs', which is a specific verb (enumerate) and resource (unique subdomains from CT logs). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on certificates (e.g., get_certificate, get_domain_certificates).
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. It does not specify prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. Without any usage context, the agent cannot make an informed choice among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns certs expiring within days but does not disclose if it includes already expired certs, the response format, or whether it is read-only. Minimal behavioral context beyond purpose.
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 sentence with no filler words, achieving conciseness. However, it could be structured to include parameter details without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the return value burden is reduced. The description covers the core purpose and parameters, but for a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, it leaves gaps in parameter semantics and behavioral context. Adequate but not thorough.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions domain and days in a template but does not add meaning beyond the field names (e.g., what is the valid range for days? Is domain a full domain or part?). The default for days (30) is not mentioned.
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?
Description clearly uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('certificates') with an explicit filter (expiring within days). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_certificate (single cert) and get_domain_certificates (all certs) by focusing on expiry.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied (when you need certs expiring soon) but no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead. The description lacks exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description does some work: it discloses paging via has_more and notes that no unbounded COUNT is supported. However, it does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. It adds value beyond the schema but is not comprehensive.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose and criteria, second adds key paging behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers pagination but lacks detail on parameter interactions and result structure. It is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The description names most parameters (domain, CN, issuer, SAN, validity, wildcard) but does not explain page and limit or how parameters combine (e.g., AND/OR). With 0% schema coverage, it provides some but not full meaning.
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 clearly states the tool searches the CT certificate index by specified criteria (domain, CN, issuer, SAN, validity, wildcard status), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_certificate (single certificate) and get_domain_certificates (domain-specific). The mention of pagination further differentiates it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for searching by various fields, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like get_certificate or get_domain_certificates. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the fetch action and the optional enrichment parameter, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., if fingerprint not found) or any other behavioral traits like rate limits or idempotency.
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 sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action and identifier, then the optional parameter. Efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the key aspects. It could mention what happens on failure (e.g., returns null or error) but overall is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds significant value. It specifies that sha256 is a 64-char hex string and explains what include_enrichment does (attach RDAP, DNS, ASN/hosting context under 'enrichment'), which is not in the schema.
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?
Clearly states the action (Fetch) and the resource (single cert) with the unique identifier (64-char hex SHA-256 fingerprint), distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch by domain or other criteria.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it does not mention when not to use this tool or comparisons to siblings like get_domain_certificates or search_certificates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: cold domains return a backfill_status sentinel requiring retry, and include_enrichment adds context. This goes beyond basic listing behavior.
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?
The description is two sentences with clear front-loading of purpose. Every sentence adds value with no extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters and no annotations, the description covers core behavior and one parameter but misses pagination details and the valid_only parameter. Output schema exists, so return values are covered, but overall completeness is moderate.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains include_enrichment; other parameters (page, limit, valid_only, domain) are left undefined. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.
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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'certificates' with a specific constraint 'for an exact domain name'. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_certificates (fuzzy) and get_subdomains (different resource).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for exact domain lookups and explains cold domain behavior and enrichment options. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or provide direct alternatives, though sibling tools are listed externally.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format including the null sentinel for cold domains and explains the enrichment behavior. This is adequate for a read-only tool, but could mention any caching or data freshness details.
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 efficient sentences. First sentence states core purpose with edge case; second explains optional parameter. No wasted words, front-loaded.
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?
The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required) and has an output schema described externally. The description covers core behavior, edge case, and optional enrichment. Missing domain format specification but otherwise complete.
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?
Input schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions). The description adds meaning for include_enrichment by detailing what enrichment includes, but leaves domain parameter underdefined (no format or validation hints). Some compensation but not full.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves the most recently issued certificate for a domain, including the edge case of null with a backfill sentinel for cold domains. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_certificate (specific certificate) and get_domain_certificates (all certificates).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance on when to use include_enrichment=true, explaining the additional context it provides (RDAP, DNS, ASN/hosting). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, though the sibling names and tool name offer implicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![certindex-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/certindex/certindex-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/certindex/certindex-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![certindex-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/certindex/certindex-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/certindex/certindex-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/certindex/certindex-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server