MCPDactyl

Get server details

server_get

Retrieve full details for a Pterodactyl server using its short identifier or UUID. Optionally target a saved panel or override the panel URL and API keys inline.

Instructions

Get details for one server by its short identifier or UUID.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "server": "<server>"
    },
    "name": "server_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`panel`	No	Name of a saved panel. Omit to use the active or default panel.
`server`	Yes	Server short id or UUID.
`baseUrl`	No	Inline panel URL override, e.g. https://panel.example.com. Not persisted.
`clientKey`	No	Inline client API key (ptlc_…) override. Not persisted.
`applicationKey`	No	Inline application API key (ptla_…) override. Not persisted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state authentication requirements, error behavior, or what kind of detail is returned.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It immediately states the action, scope, and lookup key.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read tool with rich parameter documentation, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves return-value expectations and behavioral context underspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters including panel, server, baseUrl, clientKey, and applicationKey. The description only restates the required server identifier and adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get details for one server,' and identifies the lookup key as short identifier or UUID. It is clearly distinct from server_list, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related server detail tools such as server_resources.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description states how to identify the server but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like server_list or server_resources. It also does not mention prerequisites such as panel selection or authentication overrides.

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

Deploy Server