hosting_getPHPInfoV1Returns the complete PHP environment information as an HTML page for a domain, helping debug PHP issues and inspect configuration settings.
Returns the full phpinfo page (HTML) for the website.
Use it to debug PHP issues or inspect the complete PHP environment of the website.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name | |
| username | Yes | username parameter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful facts beyond annotations: the output is a full HTML phpinfo page and the tool is intended for read-only debugging. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description does not mention that phpinfo output can be large or expose sensitive configuration details, but the safety profile is covered by annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool returns, and the second explains when to use it. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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 simple, read-only tool with two required parameters, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the output format, the target resource, and the diagnostic use case. The main gap is the absence of any differentiation from hosting_getPHPDetailsV1, which could leave an agent unsure which tool to choose in a PHP-diagnostics workflow.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the output belongs to 'the website' but does little to clarify how username and domain relate or what formats are expected. The username parameter's schema text is essentially a tautology, but the description does not meaningfully compensate.
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 ('Returns'), a specific resource ('the full phpinfo page (HTML)'), and the target ('the website'). It is clear enough that an agent can understand the core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling hosting_getPHPDetailsV1.
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?
The description provides clear use cases: 'debug PHP issues' and 'inspect the complete PHP environment of the website.' It lacks explicit exclusions or mention of alternatives such as hosting_getPHPDetailsV1, so it is not a full routing guide, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.