Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@kognar/nginx-manager-mcp-server

@kognar/nginx-manager-mcp-server

by kognar-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get proxy host

npm_get_proxy_host

Retrieves proxy host configuration details by its unique ID. Optionally expand related fields like owner or certificate.

Instructions

Get a proxy host by ID.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "npm_get_proxy_host"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
expandNoOptional expand fields (e.g. ['owner','certificate'])

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention permissions, error behavior (e.g., if ID not found), rate limits, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to adequately describe the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but omits necessary details. It states the core purpose, but could be more informative without being verbose. The structure is minimal but functional.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description should at least mention that it returns a single proxy host, possibly with expand options, but it does not. The description is complete only in the most basic sense and lacks sufficient context for a remote agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (expand has a description, but id lacks one). The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify what 'id' represents or how to use 'expand'. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema description on the required parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('proxy host'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, update, delete, and list. The 'by ID' is implicit from the required id parameter, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like npm_list_proxy_hosts (for listing) or other get tools for different resources. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools