Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
timeweb-mcp-server

timeweb-mcp-server

by webkoth
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

timeweb_get_server

Get detailed information about a specific server in Timeweb Cloud. Provide a server ID to receive its configuration and status in markdown or JSON format.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific server

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "server_id": "<server_id>"
    },
    "name": "timeweb_get_server"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' for human-readable or 'json' for machine-readable
server_idYesServer ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the generic operation. It does not mention whether authentication is needed, whether the result includes all fields, or whether this is a read-only operation. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a description with zero annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a simple GET operation, but the description does not clarify what 'detailed information' includes, nor does it reference the format parameter or mention any performance or pagination characteristics. It is adequate for a basic fetch, but gaps remain for a fully self-contained description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%; both server_id and format are documented in the schema. The description adds no further semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific server'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_servers, get_server_logs, and get_server_statistics. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_servers for getting all servers or get_server_logs for specific data. No explicit conditions or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools