ptero_app_get_nodes_node
Retrieve detailed information about a specific node using its ID from a Pterodactyl game panel.
Instructions
GET /api/application/nodes/{node}
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | ||
| query | No | ||
| body | No |
Retrieve detailed information about a specific node using its ID from a Pterodactyl game panel.
GET /api/application/nodes/{node}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | ||
| query | No | ||
| body | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and description does not disclose any behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or authentication needs.
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?
Extremely short but at the cost of under-specification. Lacks structure or any explanatory content.
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?
Given 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is utterly incomplete. Agent cannot infer required input or expected response.
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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'node', 'query', or 'body'. Agent has no clue what they represent.
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?
Description is just the HTTP method and path, which is a tautology of the tool name. It does not state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve node details).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling tools for similar get operations, this is a critical gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/PixlFlip-Enterprises/PterodactylMCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server