Diagnose HTTPS health by validating certificate validity, expiry, and names, confirming HTTP-to-HTTPS redirects, HSTS, and mixed-content issues for a host or up to 100 URLs.
HTTPS health (Search Console's HTTPS report has no API): certificate validity/expiry/names, http->https redirect, HSTS, mixed content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | No | Optional URLs to confirm they end on https (max 100) | |
| host_or_url | Yes | Host or URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile and the fact that this reaches live network state are covered. The description adds the useful detail that the checks are HTTPS-specific (cert chain, redirect, HSTS, mixed content), but says nothing about latency, whether checks are live vs cached, or failure modes 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 dense sentence with the resource and the checked facets front-loaded, and the parenthetical justification for the tool's existence is short and earns its place. The telegraphic fragment style reads slightly clipped, but there is no wasted wording.
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, two-parameter network check with no output schema, the description covers the substantive surface: it enumerates what is inspected, which effectively previews the result categories. The remaining gap, how results are shaped or whether a partial failure yields partial output, is minor.
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 100%, so both parameters (host_or_url and the optional urls array with its max-100 constraint) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the relationship between host_or_url and urls, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb+resource ('HTTPS health') and enumerates the exact facets checked: certificate validity/expiry/names, http->https redirect, HSTS, mixed content. That is far more specific than the bare name 'check_https'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby check_redirects or check_dns siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The parenthetical ('Search Console's HTTPS report has no API') explains why the tool exists but does not tell the agent when to reach for it instead of check_redirects or server_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.