Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-1panel-plus

mcp-1panel-plus

by EC061
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Issue ACME SSL Certificate

create_ssl

Submits asynchronous ACME certificate issuance for a domain or bare IP using configured ACME and DNS accounts on a selected node, without returning credentials or private keys.

Instructions

Submit asynchronous ACME certificate issuance for a domain (or bare IP with HTTP validation) using configured ACME and DNS accounts on the selected node. Credentials and private keys are never returned.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "provider": "<provider>"
    },
    "name": "create_ssl"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesQualified domain (wildcards require provider=dnsAccount) or bare IPv4/IPv6 address (requires provider=http).
nodeIdNoTarget node ID: "local" for the Main Node, or a numeric string ID (e.g. "3") from list_nodes.local
providerYesACME validation mode: "dnsAccount" or "http".
dnsAccountNoOptional DNS account name for dnsAccount validation (mutually exclusive with dns_account_id).
dns_account_idNoOptional DNS account ID for dnsAccount validation (mutually exclusive with dnsAccount).
acme_account_idNoOptional ACME account ID when multiple ACME accounts exist.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds genuinely useful context: the operation is asynchronous, it requires pre-configured ACME and DNS accounts, and credentials/private keys are never returned. The missing piece is how to observe the async outcome afterwards, since no output schema exists.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the most decision-relevant facts: asynchronous, ACME issuance, and the domain-vs-IP validation split. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 6-parameter, non-destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, async nature, and the sensitive-data guarantee. It falls slightly short by not indicating how the agent should later check issuance status, which matters precisely because the call is asynchronous.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema, including the wildcard-requires-dnsAccount and bare-IP-requires-http constraints. The description restates those rules but adds no new syntax, defaults, or mutual-exclusivity detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Submit asynchronous ACME certificate issuance for a domain...') and scopes it by validation mode and target node. This clearly separates it from sibling read operations like list_ssls or get_ssl_metadata and from enable_website_https, which is about enabling HTTPS on an existing site.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied through the conditional parenthetical ('or bare IP with HTTP validation') and 'using configured ACME and DNS accounts', which signals prerequisites exist. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative for adjacent jobs (e.g., viewing or attaching an existing certificate), so the agent must infer routing.

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