lucky_unexpose_serviceRemove a hostname's reverse-proxy route from a Lucky listener while keeping the listener active. Use this to stop exposing a service without deleting the listener.
Remove the reverse-proxy route for a hostname from its Lucky listener. The listener itself is not deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| rule_key | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds crucial context about what is destroyed (the route only) and what is preserved (the listener). This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying scope of impact.
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, compact sentence with no fluff. It states the action, target, and a key exception (listener not deleted), all in minimal words.
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 destructive operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description omits important details: what rule_key means, behavior when domain is absent, confirmation requirements, or return values. It lacks enough context for safe and correct invocation.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only implies 'domain' via 'hostname', but leaves 'rule_key' completely unexplained. A caller cannot determine whether rule_key is required or how it maps to the route.
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 specifies the verb 'Remove' and the resource (reverse-proxy route for a hostname from its Lucky listener). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like lucky_expose_service by noting the listener itself is not deleted. This provides precise, unambiguous understanding.
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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lucky_set_route_enabled (which may enable/disable rather than remove) or other deletion tools. No explicit conditions or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.