Validate nginx configuration syntax with nginx -t before applying changes. Optionally target a specific host defined in opsgate.
Validate the nginx configuration (nginx -t) without applying it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | target host name from the opsgate config; omit for the default host |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the key trait that the config is not applied (non-mutating), but says nothing about permission requirements, whether a failure surfaces as an error or a validation message, or how results are returned.
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 action front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place, and the non-applying constraint is stated immediately.
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 zero-required-parameter, read-only validation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what runs and that it doesn't mutate state. Only the failure/reporting behavior is left unstated, a minor gap.
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 the single 'host' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'omit for default host' behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Validate the nginx configuration (nginx -t)' — and clarifies the scope with 'without applying it', which implicitly separates it from nginx_reload. It stops short of naming the sibling outright, so it's clear but not maximally differentiating.
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?
'Without applying it' implies this is the dry-run/pre-check step, but the description never states when to prefer it over nginx_reload or service_reload, nor any prerequisite such as needing a valid config file present. Usage is implied rather than instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.