Inspect live TLS handshakes and certificate expiry, issuer CA, SANs, and fingerprint drift across domains to flag expiring or changed certificates.
Inspect live TLS handshakes, certificate expiry countdown, issuer CA, Subject Alternative Names (SANs), and fingerprint drift across hosts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domains | Yes | List of hostnames or domains to inspect. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully reveals that it performs live handshakes (outbound network activity, latency) and tracks fingerprint drift (implies state/comparison across runs), but says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, whether anything is modified, or how drift is determined.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the exact inspection targets. Every clause maps to a real capability, though the enumeration is list-like rather than explaining what the agent gets back.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is inspected but not how results are returned, what 'fingerprint drift' means operationally, or any safety/networking constraints. Adequate but leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'domains' parameter, so the schema already explains it is a list of hostnames/domains. The description's 'across hosts' adds only a marginal hint about bulk input and no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.
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 (Inspect) and resource (live TLS handshakes, certificates, SANs, fingerprints) with enough detail to distinguish it from generic domain tools. However, it never differentiates itself from the nearest sibling, monitor_domain_rdap_expiry, which also monitors domain-related expiry, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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?
'Across hosts' and 'live' imply a bulk external-scanning use case, so usage context is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of cases better served by audit_domain_email_security or monitor_domain_rdap_expiry, and no prerequisites such as network reachability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.