Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Tengu

Tengu

by rfunix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ssl_tls_check

Analyze a host's SSL/TLS configuration to detect weak protocols, deprecated ciphers, certificate issues, and known vulnerabilities. Get a security grade and actionable recommendations.

Instructions

Analyze SSL/TLS configuration of a host using sslyze.

Checks for:

  • Supported protocol versions (SSLv2/3, TLS 1.0-1.3)

  • Weak/deprecated cipher suites

  • Certificate validity and expiration

  • Known vulnerabilities (Heartbleed, ROBOT, POODLE, DROWN, BEAST)

  • Certificate chain trust issues

  • OCSP stapling support

  • Forward secrecy support

Args: host: Target hostname or IP address. port: Target port. Default: 443. timeout: Scan timeout in seconds.

Returns: Comprehensive SSL/TLS analysis with grade, vulnerabilities, and recommendations.

Note: - Uses sslyze Python library directly (no subprocess). - May take 30-60 seconds to complete a full analysis.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "host": "<host>"
    },
    "name": "ssl_tls_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYes
portNo
timeoutNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses implementation details (uses sslyze Python library directly, no subprocess), expected duration (30-60 seconds), and implied read-only behavior through 'analyze'. It also notes the timeout parameter, which is relevant for a scan that can take a minute.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with sections for checks, args, returns, and notes. It is slightly long due to the bulleted list of vulnerabilities, but all content is relevant and the front-loaded purpose statement makes it easy to scan. No wasted sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of SSL/TLS analysis and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's scope (checks, inputs, return summary, performance). It could further clarify edge cases like unreachable hosts or alternative tools, but for a single-host scanner it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides only types and defaults, with no descriptions. The description fully compensates by documenting each parameter: host (hostname or IP), port (default 443), and timeout (in seconds). This exceeds what is available in the schema and gives the agent actionable guidance for invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a clear verb 'Analyze' and specific resource 'SSL/TLS configuration of a host', and enumerates concrete checks (protocol versions, vulnerabilities, cert validity). It is clearly distinct from generic scanning tools but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'testssl_check', which likely serves a similar purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description conveys that this tool is for in-depth SSL/TLS analysis, with explicit options for host, port, and timeout. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'testssl_check' or mention exclusions (e.g., when not to use). The usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools