Skip to main content
Glama
robyroro

osint-mcp-server

by robyroro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

TLS certificate

tls_certificate
Read-onlyIdempotent

Connect to a host and port to read its TLS certificate details, including validity, expiry warnings, SANs, and TLS version. Return invalid-certificate reasons instead of errors.

Instructions

Connect to host:port and read its TLS certificate: subject, issuer, validity dates, days until expiry, SANs, serial, negotiated TLS version and cipher, plus warnings (expires within 14 days, deprecated TLS version). Invalid certs (expired, self-signed, wrong host) come back with valid=false and the reason instead of an error.

Contacts the host directly, like a browser would, 10s timeout, not cached. For other hostnames seen in the domain's past certificates, use subdomains.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYesHostname to connect to, e.g. "example.com". It's also the name the certificate is verified against. A URL works too, only the hostname is used.
portNoTCP port. 443 for websites, 465 / 993 / 995 for mail servers with implicit TLS.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.2.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / host / description
      Added value: +"Hostname to connect to, e.g. \"example.com\". It's also the name the certificate is verified against. A URL works too, only the hostname is used."
    • addedInput schema / properties / port / description
      Added value: +"TCP port. 443 for websites, 465 / 993 / 995 for mail servers with implicit TLS."
    • addedInput schema / properties / port / maximum
      Added value: +65535
    • addedInput schema / properties / port / minimum
      Added value: +1
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds meaningfully: a 10s timeout, no caching, direct connection 'like a browser would', and the non-obvious contract that invalid certs return valid=false with a reason instead of an error. It also discloses the warning thresholds (14-day expiry, deprecated TLS) that shape the output.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loads the action, then the returned fields, then the error contract, then the alternative. Every sentence carries non-redundant information; no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description earns its keep by enumerating the returned fields and the invalid-cert shape, and it covers timeout, caching, and sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with the host and port descriptions already documenting verification behavior and mail-server ports. The description adds only the host:port framing, so the baseline 3 is appropriate rather than a bonus.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Connect to host:port and read its TLS certificate') and enumerates exactly what is returned (subject, issuer, validity, SANs, serial, TLS version/cipher, warnings). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `subdomains` by scoping itself to one host's live certificate.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit routing: use this tool for the host's own certificate, and 'For other hostnames seen in the domain's past certificates, use subdomains.' It also brackets the appropriate ports (443 vs 465/993/995) so the agent knows the intended scope.

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