proxy-aiops

list_routes

Read-only

Lists normalized reverse-proxy routes across Traefik, Caddy, and HAProxy, including hosts, paths, services, TLS, and redirects. Filter by hostname or target.

Instructions

[READ] Routes normalised across platforms: {name, hosts, paths, priority, service, tls, enabled, redirectTo}.

Traefik router names and caddy config paths (apps/http/servers/...) come back exactly as the other tools expect them.

Args: host: Optional hostname filter (keeps host-less catch-alls). target: Proxy target name from config; omit for the default.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_routes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	No
`target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The '[READ]' prefix and readOnlyHint annotation agree, so no new safety information is added. It does add useful interoperability context: Traefik router names and Caddy config paths come back in the exact form other tools expect, which tells the agent the output is safe to feed into sibling tools. No rate limits, pagination, or failure behavior is discussed.

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?

Front-loaded with the read-only marker, the resource, and the returned field set, then a compact Args section. The field list is justified because there is no output schema. Only minor redundancy in re-explaining the default target.

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?

With no output schema, the description sensibly enumerates the returned fields and documents both parameters; annotations already cover the read-only nature. It is close to complete for a simple list tool, with the main gap being guidance on how results relate to the other route-listing siblings.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden and does it reasonably well: 'host' is described as an optional hostname filter with the non-obvious detail that host-less catch-alls are retained, and 'target' as a config proxy target whose omission selects the default. Both semantics are non-inferable from the bare schema, though format examples are absent.

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 names a specific operation and resource: it lists routes and, importantly, states they are 'normalised across platforms' with the exact field set returned. That distinguishes it from find_route and route_detail, which imply single-route lookups, though the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never says to prefer this over find_route, route_detail, or route_conflict_analysis, nor does it state any prerequisite (e.g. loaded config). The only conditional behavior mentioned is per-parameter, not tool-level.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.