Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Tengu

Tengu

by rfunix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

testssl_check

Analyze SSL/TLS endpoints for protocol weaknesses and known vulnerabilities, including BEAST, POODLE, and HEARTBLEED. Returns severity levels, supported protocols, and cipher strength.

Instructions

Comprehensive SSL/TLS analysis using testssl.sh.

Complements sslyze with additional checks including BEAST, BREACH, CRIME, LUCKY13, POODLE, HEARTBLEED, CCS injection, ROBOT, and more.

Args: host: Target hostname or IP address. port: Target port (default 443). severity_threshold: Minimum severity to report — INFO, LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, CRITICAL. timeout: Override default timeout in seconds.

Returns: SSL/TLS findings including protocol support, cipher strength, and known vulnerabilities.

Note: - testssl.sh executable or testssl must be in PATH. - Target must be in tengu.toml [targets].allowed_hosts.

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": "testssl_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYes
portNo
timeoutNo
severity_thresholdNoLOW

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of behavior disclosure. It mentions prerequisites and allowed_hosts restrictions, and the 'analysis' nature implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, whether it sends large traffic, or any side effects. It adds useful context but not full transparency.

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 clear sections (Args, Returns, Note) and is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It is slightly longer than a minimal description, but each sentence adds value—the note about allowed_hosts and PATH is essential operational information. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers the essential context: what it does, prerequisites, target constraints, and output type. It could mention that it is a passive network scan or how severity relates to testssl.sh output, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter: host, port (with default), severity_threshold (with enumerated values), and timeout (unit and purpose). This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool performs comprehensive SSL/TLS analysis using testssl.sh, and lists specific vulnerability checks (BEAST, BREACH, CRIME, etc.) that distinguish it from generic SSL/TLS tools. It also references sslyze as a complement, making the tool's specific value clear.

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 says it 'complements sslyze with additional checks' but does not explicitly state when to choose this over sslyze or the sibling ssl_tls_check. It provides operational prerequisites (testssl.sh in PATH, allowed_hosts) which imply usage context, but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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