Query crt.sh certificate transparency logs to enumerate all SSL certificates issued for a domain, revealing subdomains, issuers, wildcard certs, and suspicious certificates.
Query crt.sh certificate transparency logs to enumerate all SSL certs ever issued for a domain. Returns discovered subdomains, issuers, and flags wildcard or suspicious certs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| domain | Yes | ||
| include_subdomains | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.61Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return contents (subdomains, issuers, wildcard/suspicious flags), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about crt.sh being a slow third-party service, rate limits, or truncated/paginated results — all real operational concerns for CT log queries.
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, no filler, with the data source and scope front-loaded and the return contents in the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly picks up the job of describing returns, and it does so briefly. However, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and no annotations, it omits parameter behavior and external-service caveats, leaving meaningful 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% and the description never mentions any of the three parameters. 'Enumerate all SSL certs for a domain' loosely implies the domain parameter, but the meaning of 'limit' and especially 'include_subdomains' (which materially changes the result set) is left entirely undocumented in both description and schema.
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 (Query), a named external source (crt.sh certificate transparency logs), and a precise scope (all SSL certs ever issued for a domain). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like netintel_ssl_cert (reads one cert) or netintel_ssl_analyze (analyzes a live endpoint) without opening any schema.
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, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many SSL/DNS/domain siblings. The agent must infer that this tool is the subdomain-enumeration path rather than the certificate-inspection path, which is non-obvious given the crowded sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.