Performs a live TLS handshake against an ingress host and port to report certificate expiry, issuer, protocol, and chain trust for Kubernetes diagnostics.
Ingress TLS coverage; with host (+port) and active checks enabled, performs a TLS handshake and reports expiry, issuer, protocol, chain trust.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | ||
| port | No | ||
| namespace | No | Kubernetes namespace (required: no default configured; see list_namespaces) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that it performs a TLS handshake (an active network operation) and reports results, but it does not mention permissions, potential side effects, failure modes, or whether it is read-only. The agent is left to infer safety and operational implications.
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?
The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists the output fields. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (expiry, issuer, protocol, chain trust). However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., whether host is required), error handling, and how namespace interacts with the handshake. The description is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to make assumptions.
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?
The schema documents only the namespace parameter; host and port have no descriptions. The description mentions 'host (+port)' but does not explain their meaning, defaults, or relationships. With only 33% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters, leaving the agent uncertain about how to populate them.
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 clearly states the tool performs a TLS handshake and reports specific fields (expiry, issuer, protocol, chain trust). It distinguishes itself from ingress route or other network tools by focusing on TLS coverage. The initial phrase 'Ingress TLS coverage' is somewhat vague but the subsequent clarification resolves it.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference any sibling tools or mention conditions under which it should be used or avoided. The only hint is in the schema for namespace, but the description itself offers no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.