Retrieve a blueprint's definition and install commands for manual review and execution. Get the exact details needed to set up hosting resources yourself.
Get a blueprint's definition, including the install commands it expects to run (for you to review/run yourself - see note on why this MCP server doesn't run them automatically).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does well: it reveals the critical behavior that this is a non-executing retrieval (the install commands are returned, not run) and explains the server-side rationale. The only shortfall is that it references an external 'note' without including its content.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence states purpose and key behavior with little waste. The parenthetical aside functions as a dash-dash clause is grammatically clunky and depends on an out-of-line note, but overall the description is compact and readable.
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 straightforward two-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient: the description names the return content (definition plus install commands) and the server behavior. However, with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and 0% schema coverage, it leaves unaddressed where name/version values originate and how the returned install commands are structured.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions name or version or their meaning. The parameter semantics ('name' and 'version') are only inferable from the tool name and the word 'blueprint', which leaves the agent to guess where valid values come from.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get a blueprint's definition') and clarifies the deliverable: the install commands the blueprint expects to run. It distinguishes itself from the 'one-click' install siblings by stating the server does not execute these commands, but it does so implicitly rather than by naming those alternatives.
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 establishes a clear usage context: call this tool when the agent needs to retrieve the blueprint definition so it can review or run the install commands itself. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., ecp_oneclick_install_wordpress) or give a when-not-to-use condition, but the review-and-run framing is enough to steer an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.