Retrieve one named service or backend's full details from Traefik, Caddy, or HAProxy, optionally scoped to a specific proxy target.
[READ] One service/backend's full detail by name (from list_services).
Args: name: Service name — traefik service name, caddy route config path, or haproxy backend 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?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates it. The description adds no behavior beyond that: no mention of what happens when the name is unknown, no error/empty handling, and no output-shape note. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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 with the one-line purpose, followed by a compact Args block that documents each parameter with no filler. Well-sized for a two-parameter read tool.
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?
Covers the operation, both parameters, and their value formats, which is appropriate for a single-record read with no output schema and only one required parameter. The absence of any not-found/empty behavior note is the only meaningful gap.
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 full parameter burden it must. It explains that 'name' is a traefik service name, caddy route config path, or haproxy backend name — clarifying provider-specific value formats — and that 'target' is the proxy target name, omitted for the default.
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 service/backend's full detail by name') and pins down scope (single, by name), with the parenthetical '(from list_services)' linking it to its list counterpart. It does not differentiate from other detail siblings like upstream_detail or route_detail, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
'From list_services' implies the discover-then-detail workflow, which is useful implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no guidance on choosing this over sibling detail tools, so usage is only inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.