lucky_list_port_forwardsList current port-forward rules showing listen port, target, and protocol to verify or audit active forwarding configurations.
List port-forward rules in compact form (listen port, target, protocol).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of context by naming the compact output fields, but it does not address pagination, ordering, authentication, or output shape beyond those three fields.
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 focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the only necessary extra detail: the compact output fields. There is no filler or repetition of annotation information.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is complete enough: it identifies the operation, the resource, and the key return fields. The annotations cover the safety behavior, and there is no complex input or output schema that would require further explanation.
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 input schema is empty and has 100% schema description coverage by nature, so there are no parameters for the description to explain. Per the zero-parameter baseline, this is scored well because no input semantics are missing.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('port-forward rules'), and the output scope ('compact form (listen port, target, protocol)'). It is immediately distinguishable from related siblings like lucky_upsert_port_forward, lucky_delete_port_forward, and lucky_port_forward_logs.
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?
The description implies the tool is for reading port-forward rules rather than creating or modifying them, which is reasonable against the sibling set. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or what to use when more detail is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.