Retrieve monitored TLS certificates with expiration dates, issuers, chain validity, and days remaining; filter by agent UUID or local to identify expiring or invalid certificates.
List all monitored TLS certificates with expiration dates, issuer, chain validity, and days until expiry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Filter by agent UUID, or 'local' for certificates checked directly by the server. Omit to return all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description goes beyond the annotation by disclosing the shape of the returned data (issuer, chain validity, days until expiry), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of mentioning pagination or volume, so not a 5.
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 with the resource first and the returned fields trailing. No preamble, no redundancy.
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 read-only, zero-required-parameter listing tool this covers purpose, safety (via annotation), and return fields (absent an output schema). Only gaps are the agent_id/local filtering behavior and any pagination or result-size expectations.
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 coverage is 100% and the single agent_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'local' sentinel value. The description says nothing about filtering, so the baseline 3 applies; the phrase 'List all' even slightly obscures that a filter exists.
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 ('List') and resource ('monitored TLS certificates') and enumerates the data points returned (expiration dates, issuer, chain validity, days until expiry). No sibling tool covers certificates, so it is trivially distinguishable from the surrounding list_* family.
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 verb 'List all' implies a straightforward enumeration use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus something like get_security_insights or get_security_posture, and no note about when the agent_id filter should be applied. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.