get_ca_statusCheck if a local CA root certificate exists for HTTPS interception; returns public PEM only and keeps the private key in the engine.
Return whether a local CA root certificate is available for HTTPS interception. Only the public PEM is exposed; the private key never leaves the engine.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait beyond the structured fields: only the public PEM is exposed and the private key never leaves the engine, which answers the main data-exposure question an agent would have about a CA tool.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the return value and followed by the one qualification that matters. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does specify the answer is an availability check on the CA root. It stops short of describing the shape of the response (e.g., whether the PEM itself is returned alongside the boolean), leaving a small ambiguity.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing inputs for a parameterless status call.
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 specific verb+resource ('Return whether a local CA root certificate is available') and scopes it with the purpose ('for HTTPS interception'). It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the nearest sibling, proxy_status, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this before starting interception, in a troubleshooting flow, or instead of proxy_status. The 'for HTTPS interception' phrase hints at the domain but is not an invocation condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.