cPanel MCP Server

create_git_repo

Create a new Git repository in cPanel by providing a name and repository root path. Optionally clone from an existing remote repository via URL.

Instructions

Create a new Git repository in cPanel

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "repository_root": "<repository_root>"
    },
    "name": "create_git_repo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Repository name
`repository_root`	Yes	Path for the repository (e.g., /home/user/repositories/myrepo)
`source_repository`	No	URL of remote repository to clone from

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose potential side effects like file creation, permission requirements, or behavior when the repository already exists, leaving the agent without essential behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

Single sentence that immediately states the action and context, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

For a simple creation tool with fully described parameters, the description is adequate but lacks context about optional clone behavior, failure conditions, or how it fits into the broader Git workflow implied by sibling tools like deploy_git_repo and get_git_deployment_status.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies as the schema already documents all parameters adequately.

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?

Description states 'Create a new Git repository in cPanel' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_git_repos, delete_git_repo, and deploy_git_repo.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention related tools, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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

Deploy Server