check_sslInspect a domain's SSL/TLS certificate: issuer, expiry, protocol, and flags for expiring/self-signed/mismatched certs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain, e.g. example.com |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the tool is read-only and interacts externally. The description adds value by detailing what the tool inspects (issuer, expiry, protocol, flags) without contradicting annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and output without any redundant information.
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 simple single-parameter tool with good annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. However, it omits error scenarios like unreachable domains, which could be desirable.
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% with a clear parameter description ('Domain, e.g. example.com'). The description does not add significant extra meaning 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?
The description clearly states the tool inspects a domain's SSL/TLS certificate, listing specific details like issuer, expiry, protocol, and flags. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools focused on other aspects like security headers or email security.
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?
The description implies usage for checking SSL/TLS certificates but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of website analysis: AI visibility, email security, exposed files, security headers, SEO, SSL, and a general scan. No two tools overlap in purpose, making it easy for an agent to select the right one.
Six of seven tools follow the 'check_<subject>' pattern, which is clear and consistent. The outlier 'scan_website' breaks the pattern but is still understandable. Overall, naming is predictable with a minor deviation.
Seven tools is an appropriate number for a website scanning/analysis server. It covers key areas (security, SEO, AI visibility) without being overwhelming. Each tool earns its place by addressing a specific need.
The tool surface covers major website concerns: security (headers, SSL, exposed files, email), SEO, and AI visibility. The general 'scan_website' tool likely fills gaps like performance and secrets. Missing some niche checks (e.g., accessibility), but the core is well-covered.