Laravel Forge MCP Server (Extended)

get_env

Retrieve the .env file contents for a specified site on a Laravel Forge server. Provide server and site IDs to get the environment variables.

Instructions

Get the .env file contents for a site

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": {
      "serverId": "<serverId>",
      "siteId": "<siteId>"
    },
    "name": "get_env"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteId`	Yes	The ID of the site
`serverId`	Yes	The ID of the server

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that .env files contain sensitive data, whether the operation is idempotent, or if special permissions are required. The word 'Get' implies a read but lacks important safety context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single efficient sentence with no fluff. It earns its place but could slightly expand to include behavioral notes without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema, the description omits return format or structure. It does not explain the relationship between serverId and siteId, nor the nature of the .env file. For a tool retrieving sensitive configuration, this is insufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, merely echoing 'for a site' which is already implied by the siteId parameter.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Get the .env file contents for a site', using a clear verb and resource. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools, such as update_env which is the write counterpart.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_env. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or context for selection among many sibling read tools.

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