lucky_list_web_rulesList active Lucky web listeners and their reverse-proxy routes—showing port, TLS, domains, and backends—to verify configuration before exposing a service.
List Lucky web listeners and their reverse-proxy routes in compact form (port, TLS, domains, backends). Use this before exposing a service.
| 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavior context by noting the compact output format and the specific route properties included, which is valuable since no output schema is provided.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first states the operation and output contents, the second gives the recommended use case. No redundant or filler text.
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 with annotations already covering safety, the description provides the necessary information about what is returned and when to use it. Nothing important is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies for parameterless tools.
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') and resource ('Lucky web listeners and their reverse-proxy routes'), and identifies the key output fields ('port, TLS, domains, backends'). This clearly distinguishes it from other list tools like lucky_list_port_forwards or lucky_list_tunnels.
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?
It explicitly recommends using this tool before exposing a service, giving a clear use context. It does not mention exclusions or direct alternatives, but the contextual guidance is sufficient for a simple read-only list operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.