Fetch details of a specific Nginx Proxy Manager redirection host by ID. Use it to inspect redirect configuration and expand related objects when needed.
Get details of a specific redirection host by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expand | No | Comma-separated related objects to expand | |
| host_id | Yes | The ID of the redirection host |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but the description says nothing about required permissions/API key, behavior on an unknown or deleted host_id, or what the returned 'details' comprise.
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 short sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though almost too terse to earn the top mark.
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 single-record getter with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves the shape of the returned 'details' undefined. An agent can call it, but cannot predict the response payload.
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%, so both host_id and expand are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that baseline, not even acknowledging the existence of the expand 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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (redirection host), and the phrase 'a specific ... by ID' distinguishes it from the sibling npm_list_redirection_hosts. It doesn't explicitly name the list tool as an alternative, so it falls just short of 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'by ID' signals this is the single-record lookup versus the list sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of what to do if the ID is unknown, and no routing to alternatives such as npm_list_redirection_hosts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.