get_inboundFetch a single inbound's full details by numeric ID: protocol, stream settings, clients, and traffic. Use after listing inbounds to obtain the ID.
Get full details of a single inbound (protocol settings, stream settings, clients, traffic) by its numeric ID. Use list_inbounds first to find the ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric inbound ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's job is to add context. It specifies exactly what data is returned (protocol settings, stream settings, clients, traffic), which helps the agent set expectations. No contradictions with 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 sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is stated first, followed by a necessary usage hint. Every word adds value, and the structure front-loads the essential information.
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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns (the enumerated contents), and how to obtain the required ID. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter as 'Numeric inbound ID' with 100% coverage. The description only repeats 'numeric ID', adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a single inbound', and specifies what the full details include (protocol settings, stream settings, clients, traffic). It distinguishes itself from 'list_inbounds' and other sibling tools.
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?
Explicitly instructs the agent to 'Use list_inbounds first to find the ID', providing a clear workflow and condition for using this tool. This also implicitly signals when not to use it—when no ID is known—and points to the relevant sibling for the lookup step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.