Skip to main content
Glama
Iqram09

kong-ai-gateway-mcp

by Iqram09
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get one Kong service

get_service
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves the full configuration of a Kong service, including host, port, path, protocol, retries, and timeouts, to diagnose routing and backend issues.

Instructions

Retrieves the full configuration of a single Kong service.

USE WHEN: you have identified a service and need its backend address, protocol, path prefix, retry policy or timeouts. Typically the step after get_route tells you which service a route belongs to.

DO NOT USE to find out which plugins apply -- plugins live on a separate endpoint; use list_plugins_for_route, which already accounts for service-level inheritance.

RETURNS: one service with ref, host, port, path, protocol, retries and the three timeout values.

LIMITATIONS: does not list the routes attached to the service, and does not tell you whether host names a Kong upstream or a plain DNS hostname. If you need target health, pass the host to check_upstream_health.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serviceYesService name, id, or a `service:<name>` reference returned by another tool. Example: "payments-api" or "service:payments-api".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: what it does not reveal (attached routes, whether host is an upstream or plain DNS) and a concrete next step (check_upstream_health). It stops short of discussing errors or auth requirements, hence a 4.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Labeled sections (USE WHEN / DO NOT USE / RETURNS / LIMITATIONS) make the content scannable and front-load the core purpose in one sentence. Every sentence carries routing or constraint information; none is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and discloses two important limitations plus a follow-up tool. For a single-resource read tool this covers everything an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `service` parameter already documents accepted forms (name, id, service:<name>). The description adds nothing about the identifier format, so the baseline 3 applies – the schema carries this dimension.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (single Kong service's full configuration), and explicitly scopes it against siblings by ruling out plugin lookup and route listing. An agent can distinguish it from get_route, list_services, and list_plugins_for_route without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides an explicit USE WHEN trigger (you have identified a service and need backend address/protocol/path/retry/timeouts) plus a named alternative and condition for DO NOT USE (plugins -> list_plugins_for_route). This is the when/when-not/alternatives pattern at full strength.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools