get_forwardRetrieve the HTTP forward configured for a specific host and Domeneshop domain ID to inspect where it redirects.
Get the HTTP forward configured for a specific host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | the host/subdomain the forward applies to, e.g. 'www' or '@' for the root | |
| domain_id | Yes | the Domeneshop domain ID, from list_domains |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| host | Yes | ||
| frame | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say what happens when no forward exists for the host, whether the lookup is case-sensitive, or anything else about behavior.
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?
A single tight sentence with the resource and scoping constraint front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too sparse to be maximally useful.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains missing is routing information relative to list_forwards and the not-found case, leaving the definition minimally viable but not complete.
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% and both parameters are well documented in the schema (including the '@' root-host convention and the domain_id source). The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Get the HTTP forward') and scopes it to a specific host, so the agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling list_forwards, which is the most likely alternative an agent would consider.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_forwards or get_domain, and no mention of prerequisites or error conditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the host parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.