Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-artisan

mcp-artisan

by 0mandrock1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

describe_route

Describe a Laravel route by name or URI. Get the route's definition, including HTTP methods, URI, name, and handler, for read-only inspection.

Instructions

One route by name or URI.

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": {
      "name_or_uri": "<name_or_uri>"
    },
    "name": "describe_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
name_or_uriYesRoute name (e.g. users.index) or URI (e.g. /users).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

There are no annotations, and the description provides no behavioral context beyond the tool's name. Nothing is disclosed about the return value, error behavior if the route is not found, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise but perhaps too terse. It is a grammatical fragment rather than a complete sentence, and while it wastes no words, it sacrifices clarity and completeness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and no behavioral disclosure, the description does not explain what 'describing' a route entails. An agent would not know what information to expect in return, making the tool under-specified for effective use.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the single parameter with concrete examples (users.index, /users). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'One route by name or URI' clearly indicates the tool operates on a single route, distinguishing it from list_routes. However, it is a fragment rather than a full sentence, so it lacks explicit verb phrasing like 'Show details for'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_routes. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred.

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