whm_autossl_problemsList AutoSSL domain validation (DCV) problems for a cPanel account to diagnose why a certificate is not renewing.
List the latest AutoSSL domain validation (DCV) problems for one account, which usually explain why a certificate isn't renewing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | cPanel account username, in lowercase. Use whm_list_domains to find the account that owns a domain. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that results are 'latest' (recency) and scoped to a single account, but says nothing about how many problems are returned or whether empty results are possible.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then immediately justifies the tool's value. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and diagnostic motivation adequately. Only the shape of the returned problem list is left implicit, which is a minor gap.
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 schema's own parameter description already explains the lowercase username format and routes the agent to whm_list_domains. The description's phrase 'for one account' only reinforces the per-account scoping, 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List the latest AutoSSL domain validation (DCV) problems') scoped to one account, and explains the diagnostic meaning of the results. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling whm_ssl_certificates by its focus on problems rather than certificates, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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?
Provides clear context for when this tool applies: when a certificate isn't renewing and the cause is likely DCV failure. It does not state exclusions or point to an alternative tool for other SSL questions, so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.