mcp-1panel-plus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete Website Reverse-Proxy Rule

delete_website_proxy

Destructive

Delete a named reverse-proxy rule from a website on a selected 1Panel node to remove outdated or unwanted routing configurations.

Instructions

Delete a named reverse-proxy rule from a website on the selected node.

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": {
      "website_id": "<website_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "delete_website_proxy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Name of the reverse-proxy rule to delete.
`nodeId`	No	Target node ID: "local" for the Main Node, or a numeric string ID (e.g. "3") from list_nodes.	local
`website_id`	Yes	Numeric website ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping detail that the rule must be named and belongs to a specific website and node, but it does not add operational details such as whether deletion is reversible, what happens if the rule is absent, or permission requirements.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It clearly identifies the action, the target resource, and the scoping context.

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 destructive three-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate because annotations cover the destructive nature and the schema fully documents the parameters. However, it omits practical context that would help an agent invoke it safely, such as how to discover existing rule names or what happens on success or failure.

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%, with website_id, name, and nodeId all documented in the schema. The description reinforces that 'name' identifies the rule and that the node selection matters, but it adds no new syntax or validation meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb (delete) and resource (named reverse-proxy rule) scoped to a website and node. It is distinguishable from the sibling upsert_website_proxy by the deletion verb, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as listing existing rules with list_website_proxies, and no warning about irreversibility. The only contextual clue is the phrase 'on the selected node.'

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