Lists all servers in the Tugport setup, including the panel's local server, with status, version, and size so you can identify and manage targets.
The servers in this setup (the panel's own is id local) with status, versions and size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields (status, versions, size) and the special 'local' id, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, pagination, or whether any of the listed data is sensitive.
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?
It is a single short sentence, so nothing is padded, but the fragmentary phrasing with a mid-sentence parenthetical ('the panel's own is id local') reads awkwardly and buries the key identification detail rather than front-loading it.
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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool the description gives an adequate sketch of what comes back (status, versions, size) plus the 'local' id convention. It still omits what a 'server' means in this setup relative to services/projects and whether results are paginated or ordered.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description nonetheless adds value by noting the special 'local' id for the panel's own server, which clarifies how to interpret that entry in the results.
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 noun phrase 'The servers in this setup' identifies the resource and the trailing clause names the returned attributes (status, versions, size), so the purpose is inferable as a listing tool. However, no verb is stated and nothing distinguishes it from close siblings like list_services or server_status, leaving the agent to guess which listing it needs.
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 tool versus server_status, list_services, or list_projects. The only routing hint is the parenthetical that the panel's own server is id 'local', which is context rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed