mcp-1panel-plus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create Static or Reverse-Proxy Website

create_website

Create a static or reverse-proxy website on a selected 1Panel node, optionally binding an existing SSL certificate for immediate HTTPS.

Instructions

Create a static or reverse-proxy website in the default website group on the selected node. Optionally bind an existing SSL certificate ID (ssl_id) immediately after creation.

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>",
      "website_type": "<website_type>"
    },
    "name": "create_website"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`IPV6`	No	Enable IPv6 listener on the website.
`port`	No	HTTP listen port; when omitted, uses the target node's installed OpenResty HTTP port.
`http3`	No	Enable HTTP/3 (QUIC) when `ssl_id` is provided.
`domain`	Yes	Primary domain name (e.g. app.example.com).
`nodeId`	No	Target node ID: "local" for the Main Node, or a numeric string ID (e.g. "3") from list_nodes.	local
`ssl_id`	No	Optional existing 1Panel SSL certificate ID to bind for HTTPS immediately after creation.
`http_config`	No	HTTP redirect behavior when `ssl_id` is provided.	HTTPToHTTPS
`website_type`	Yes	Website type: "static" or "proxy".
`proxy_address`	No	Upstream URL when website_type is "proxy" (e.g. "http://127.0.0.1:8080").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful ordering context (SSL is bound immediately after creation, certificate must already exist, site lands in the default group) but omits failure modes such as duplicate-domain rejection or whether creation is idempotent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two tight sentences with the core action and placement stated first, followed by the optional SSL behavior. Nothing is wasted, though the SSL clause could be folded in without losing clarity.

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 nine-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the key contextual facts: default group placement, node targeting, and post-creation SSL binding. It does not state what is returned (e.g., a website ID) to enable chaining into enable_website_https, which is a modest gap given the absence of an output schema.

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%, so all nine parameters are already self-documenting, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only marginal meaning by tying ssl_id to an existing certificate and noting the default group, without explaining interactions like http3 requiring ssl_id beyond what the schema says.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a static or reverse-proxy website") and names the placement constraints (default website group, selected node). It covers both modes the enum allows, though it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as upsert_website_proxy or enable_website_https.

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 only implied: this is the creation path, and ssl_id accepts an existing certificate. It never says when to use this versus create_ssl first, versus enable_website_https afterwards, or when to prefer enabling HTTPS later. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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