lucky_get_web_ruleGet a compact view of a Lucky web listener and its routes by providing the rule key. Use it to inspect listener configuration and route details for reverse proxy management.
Get a compact view of one Lucky web listener and its routes by rule key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_key | Yes | Lucky web listener key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that the view is 'compact,' implying a summarized response, but does not disclose error behavior, return format details, or other side effects beyond that.
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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundancy and is appropriately sized for a simple getter.
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?
For a simple one-parameter getter with safety annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate. It hints at the response via 'compact view' but does not specify return structure or error handling; however, given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.
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?
The single parameter rule_key is fully described in the schema as 'Lucky web listener key', so schema coverage is 100%. The description mentions 'by rule key' but adds no additional meaning, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
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 action (get) and resource (one Lucky web listener and its routes) with the key parameter. It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like lucky_list_web_rules, though the singular 'one' implies a single-item getter.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to list all rules instead of fetching one. It lacks any exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when this is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.