Fetch complete configuration details for a named Traefik, Caddy, or HAProxy route, with optional proxy target, to inspect settings before changes or troubleshoot routing issues.
[READ] One route's full detail by name (from list_routes).
Args: name: Route name — traefik router name, caddy route config path, or haproxy frontend name. target: Proxy target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description reinforces read scope but adds no rate limits, auth needs, or output characteristics; 'full detail' is undisclosed. Modest added value over 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?
Front-loaded one-line summary followed by a compact Args block; each line earns its place. Minor redundancy between the summary and the name arg note, but nothing wasteful.
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?
With no output schema the description should hint at what 'full detail' returns, and it does not; there is also no target enumeration despite backend-specific routing. Adequate for a read tool whose annotation covers safety, but the return shape is left entirely to inference.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so well: it explains that name is a route name presented as a traefik router name, caddy config path, or haproxy frontend name, and that target defaults when omitted. This meaningfully exceeds the schema's bare string typing.
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+resource ('One route's full detail') and anchors the name to list_routes, so an agent can distinguish it from list_routes and find_route. It stops short of explaining how it differs from find_route, so it's clear but not fully disambiguated among siblings.
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?
Tells the agent the name comes from list_routes and that target can be omitted for the default, which is useful implied usage. It never states when to prefer this over find_route or route_conflict_analysis, so the guidance is partial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.