laravel-forge-readonly-mcp

Get Server PHP Versions

get_server_php

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve PHP versions installed on a server, including default and patch levels, to identify servers running end-of-life versions.

Instructions

The PHP versions installed on a server, which is the default, and their patch levels. Useful for spotting servers left on an end-of-life version.

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_php"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`server`	Yes	Server id from list_servers.
`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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds transparent details about the output (versions, default, patch levels) without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the tool's functionality, and the second adds a practical use case. Perfectly concise.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes what is returned (versions, default, patch levels). It does not specify structure, but for a simple list this is sufficient. Parameter handling is clear from the schema.

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%, so parameters are fully described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond stating it's for a server, which is already covered. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns the PHP versions installed on a server, including the default version and patch levels. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_server (general server info) and list_servers (list servers).

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?

The description provides a clear use case ('spotting servers left on an end-of-life version'), implying when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is narrowly defined, and alternatives are evident from sibling names.

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