laravel-forge-readonly-mcp

Get Server

get_server

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve complete details of a specific server from Laravel Forge, including provider, region, PHP version, database version, IP addresses, tags, and provisioning state.

Instructions

Get one server in full: provider and region, sizes, PHP and database versions, IP addresses, tags and provisioning state.

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": "get_server"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`server`	Yes	Server id from list_servers.
`include`	No	Comma-separated relationships to embed (e.g. "tags,latestDeployment").
`organization`	No	Organisation slug. Optional when the server has a default configured.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal readOnly, openWorld, idempotent. Description adds value by listing what data is returned. No contradictions.

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?

Single, efficient sentence. Front-loaded with purpose, no fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple read tool, description covers return fields, parameters are documented in schema, sibling tools exist. No output schema needed given description.

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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions. Tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what schema provides.

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 clearly states 'Get one server in full' and lists specific fields (provider, region, sizes, PHP/db versions, IPs, tags, provisioning state), distinguishing it from list_servers (list all) and get_server_php (specific).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Implies use when detailed single-server info is needed; references required param from list_servers. Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but sibling tools context helps.

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