ssl_scanInspect SSL/TLS certificate identity, validity, protocol, cipher, and trust for an authorized host to verify secure configuration during security testing.
Inspect certificate identity, validity, protocol, cipher, and trust for an authorized host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No | ||
| target | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | Yes | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| trusted_for_host | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the specific aspects inspected (identity, validity, protocol, cipher, trust) but says nothing about permissions needed, rate limits, or failure behavior for unreachable hosts.
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 sentence covering the verb and the inspected facets, with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the coverage gaps noted elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the explicit list of inspected aspects, this is nearly complete for a 2-parameter read tool; the missing port semantics and sibling differentiation are the only real gaps.
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%, so the schema names 'target' and 'port' with constraints and a default of 443 but never explains them. The description only implicitly references 'host' and never mentions the port parameter or its default, leaving the parameter semantics essentially undocumented across both sources.
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?
The description pairs a specific verb ('Inspect') with a concrete resource list ('certificate identity, validity, protocol, cipher, and trust'), which is far more informative than the bare name ssl_scan. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tls_configuration_analysis, which an agent could easily confuse with it.
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?
The phrase 'for an authorized host' hints at a prerequisite (target authorization), giving some implied usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no direction on choosing this over tls_configuration_analysis, port_scan, or http_probe, so an agent must infer the routing decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.