Check whether a project's nginx site is configured, enabled, and secured with SSL by providing its slug to verify deployment readiness.
Check if a project has an nginx site configured and enabled, and whether SSL is set up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific aspects it checks (configured, enabled, SSL), but does not disclose return format or behavior when the site is absent. It adds some context beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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?
One concise sentence with no wasted words. The key action and scope are front-loaded, and it reads clearly.
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?
The tool has no output schema and one undocumented parameter, yet the description does not mention what the tool returns or how the results should be interpreted. It also does not clarify the meaning of 'configured and enabled' in practical terms. For a simple status check, this is still incomplete.
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 0%, so the description should explain the single parameter 'slug'. It does not define what a slug is or how it should be formatted, only implies it identifies a project. This is a significant gap for a tool with an undocumented parameter.
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 clear action ('Check') on a specific resource ('nginx site configured and enabled') with additional detail about SSL. It is distinct from write operations like enable/disable/remove and from validation tools like gatekeeper_nginx_validate, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 purpose implies a read-only status check, which is obvious from the name and description, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gatekeeper_nginx_validate or gatekeeper_nginx_wizard_context. There is no exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.