Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
certindex-mcp

certindex-mcp

by certindex
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_certificate

Retrieve a TLS certificate by its SHA-256 fingerprint, with optional enrichment data including RDAP, DNS, and hosting details.

Instructions

Fetch a single cert by its 64-char hex SHA-256 fingerprint.

Set include_enrichment=true to attach RDAP + DNS + ASN/hosting context for the cert's primary hostname under enrichment.

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": {
      "sha256": "<sha256>"
    },
    "name": "get_certificate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sha256Yes
include_enrichmentNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools