railway-mcp

tcp_proxy_list

[API] List all TCP proxies for a service in a specific environment

Instructions

[API] List all TCP proxies for a service in a specific environment

⚡️ Best for: ✓ Viewing TCP proxy configurations ✓ Managing external access ✓ Auditing service endpoints

→ Prerequisites: service_list

→ Next steps: tcp_proxy_create

→ Related: domain_list, service_info

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": {
      "environmentId": "<environmentId>",
      "serviceId": "<serviceId>"
    },
    "name": "tcp_proxy_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`serviceId`	Yes	ID of the service to list TCP proxies for
`environmentId`	Yes	ID of the environment containing the service

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 18, 2025

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It only states that it lists TCP proxies without mentioning any constraints, side effects, pagination, or authentication requirements. The behavioral trait is minimally implied as read-only, but no details are given.

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?

The description is concise, starting with a clear one-liner, followed by well-structured bullet points for best uses, prerequisites, next steps, and related tools. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple list tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: purpose, use cases, prerequisites, and follow-up actions. It lacks behavioral details but is otherwise complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, but it does imply that serviceId comes from a prior service_list call. Baseline 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 the verb 'List' and resource 'TCP proxies for a service in a specific environment'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tcp_proxy_create by focusing on listing, and the 'Best for' section reinforces its use cases.

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 explicit usage context with 'Best for' checkmarks, prerequisites (service_list), next steps (tcp_proxy_create), and related tools (domain_list, service_info). It is only missing explicit when-not conditions, but the guidance is strong.

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