List all proxy hosts in Nginx Proxy Manager to inspect or manage reverse proxy configurations, with optional search filtering and expansion of related objects.
List all proxy hosts configured in Nginx Proxy Manager
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Search/filter keyword | |
| expand | No | Comma-separated related objects to expand (e.g., "owner,certificate,access_list") |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. "List" implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about pagination, result limits, authentication requirements, or what "all" means at scale. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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 the verb and resource front-loaded and zero wasted words. Appropriate for a trivial list tool.
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 read-only list operation the description is minimally sufficient, but with no output schema the agent gets no hint about the shape or size of the returned host list, and there is no annotation coverage of safety or pagination. Adequate, with clear gaps.
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 the query and expand parameters are already fully documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about filtering or expansion beyond what the schema states.
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 ("List") and resource ("proxy hosts") with a scope qualifier ("all ... configured"), so the agent can tell it apart from sibling reads like npm_list_redirection_hosts or npm_list_streams by resource alone. It never explicitly names an alternative or contrast target, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives (e.g. npm_get_proxy_host for a single host). The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.