Skip to main content
Glama
firesh

SSL Monitor MCP Server

by firesh
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves domain registration and expiration details via WHOIS/RDAP, while the other focuses on SSL certificate information for a host and port. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the appropriate tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' as the prefix, followed by a descriptive noun phrase (domain_info, ssl_cert_info). This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a monitoring purpose, as it lacks operations like checking SSL expiration alerts, updating or deleting monitored domains, or listing multiple domains. A more comprehensive monitoring server would typically include more tools to cover core workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for an SSL monitoring domain. It only provides read-only information (get_domain_info and get_ssl_cert_info) without any management capabilities such as adding domains to monitor, setting up alerts, or handling SSL renewal processes. This leaves significant gaps that could cause agent failures in automated monitoring tasks.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data sources (WHOIS/RDAP) but fails to describe critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. For a read operation with external dependencies, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

    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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information (what data is retrieved and how). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

    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's complexity (involving external WHOIS/RDAP lookups) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return values, error conditions, or operational constraints, leaving the agent under-informed about how to interpret results or handle failures.

    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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'domain' clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on domain format or validation). Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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?

    The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific information retrieved ('domain registration, expiration, and daysUntilExpiry'), along with the method ('using WHOIS/RDAP'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_ssl_cert_info' by focusing on domain metadata rather than SSL certificates. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

    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 like the sibling 'get_ssl_cert_info', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage advice, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

    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 of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but fails to describe key behaviors such as network connectivity requirements, error handling, rate limits, or the format and content of the returned certificate information. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

    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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted information.

    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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what certificate information is returned (e.g., issuer, expiry, validation status), potential errors, or dependencies like network access. For a tool that likely involves external queries and returns structured data, this omission reduces its usefulness for an agent.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('domain' and 'port') well-documented in the schema. The description mentions 'host and port' but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid domains or port usage beyond the default. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

    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?

    The description clearly states the action ('Get SSL certificate information') and the target ('for a host and port'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_domain_info', which might provide overlapping or related information about domains.

    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 like 'get_domain_info'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and parameters.

    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

sslmon-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

sslmon-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/firesh/sslmon-mcp'

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