Preview a new HTTP forward for a domain and detect DNS collisions before creation, so you can verify the target URL, host, and framing options.
Preview a new HTTP forward with DNS collision checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| forward | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent nothing is mutated, and 'preview' agrees with that, so there is no contradiction. The description adds the DNS collision check, which is real context beyond the annotations, but it does not say whether collisions cause an error or are merely reported, nor what the preview response contains.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is arguably terse to the point of under-specification, but as a structural matter it is efficient.
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?
The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and readOnlyHint covers the safety profile. However, the tool's role in the broader forward lifecycle and the meaning of its two parameters remain unexplained, leaving gaps for a two-parameter preview that performs collision analysis.
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% for two required parameters, including a nested Forward object with url/host/frame and a domain that accepts either a name string or a numeric ID. The description supplies no parameter meaning at all, so this is well below the baseline for a documented schema.
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 states a specific verb (preview) plus resource (HTTP forward) and adds a distinctive behavior (DNS collision checks), and it usefully resolves the tension between the name 'create_forward' and the read-only nature of the operation. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_forward, list_forwards or plan_dns_batch, so the agent must still infer where it fits.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_forward, list_forwards, or the plan/apply pair. Crucially, it never says how a previewed forward actually gets persisted, so an agent cannot tell whether this replaces create semantics or merely validates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.