Request Let's Encrypt SSL certificates for domains on a 1Panel server, specifying key type and optional auto-renew.
Obtain SSL certificate (Let's Encrypt)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ID | Yes | ||
| time | No | ||
| unit | No | ||
| domains | Yes | ||
| keyType | Yes | ||
| autoRenew | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names Let's Encrypt, but does not disclose validation method (HTTP/DNS), rate limits, permission requirements, failure/renewal behavior, or any mutation side effects.
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 phrase with no filler, but it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters and no other documentation. It is concise but not structured enough to be operationally useful.
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?
For a six-parameter certificate-issuance tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter meaning, prerequisites, and expected behavior, leaving the agent without enough context to call it correctly.
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% across 6 parameters, and the description adds no meaning for ID, domains, keyType, time, unit, or autoRenew. The description does not compensate for the absent schema descriptions.
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 concrete verb ('Obtain') and resource ('SSL certificate'), and narrows the issuer to Let's Encrypt. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as create_certificate, renew_ssl, or upload_ssl, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.
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?
Provides no when-to-use condition, prerequisites, or alternative selection guidance. It is not misleading, but an agent gets no help deciding between this and renew_ssl, resolve_ssl, apply_ssl, or create_certificate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.