vercel-mcp-pro

issue_cert

Provision TLS certificates for specified domains. Vercel automates the ACME flow to validate and issue certificates.

Instructions

Issue (provision) a new TLS certificate for one or more domains. Vercel handles the ACME flow.

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": {
      "cns": "<cns>"
    },
    "name": "issue_cert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cns`	Yes	Common names / domains to cover.
`teamId`	No	Team ID to scope the request. Falls back to VERCEL_TEAM_ID when omitted.
`slug`	No	Team slug to scope the request (alternative to teamId).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description mentions 'Vercel handles the ACME flow', hinting at automation, but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing certificates, failure modes, or authorization requirements. With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 with no extraneous words. The action verb is front-loaded. Every sentence provides value: one for purpose, one for process.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and low parameter complexity, the description is minimal but covers the primary purpose. Missing details on success response, error handling, and potential side effects reduce completeness.

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% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the ACME flow, but the parameter meanings are already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (issue/provision) and the resource (TLS certificate), and distinguishes from siblings like 'upload_cert' which involves manual upload. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other cert-related tools like 'get_cert' or 'remove_cert'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., upload_cert). It implies usage for new certificates but lacks prerequisites or context on when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server