mcp-1panel-plus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Enable or Disable Website HTTPS

enable_website_https

Bind an existing 1Panel SSL certificate to a website to enable HTTPS, HSTS, or HTTP3; set enable false to disable HTTPS.

Instructions

Bind an existing 1Panel SSL certificate (ssl_id) to enable HTTPS/HSTS/HTTP3 on a website, or disable HTTPS (enable: false).

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": "enable_website_https"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hsts`	No	Enable Strict-Transport-Security header.
`http3`	No	Enable HTTP/3 (QUIC).
`enable`	No	Set true to enable HTTPS or false to disable HTTPS.
`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	1Panel SSL certificate ID (from list_ssls). Required when enable is true.
`website_id`	Yes	Numeric website ID.
`http_config`	No	HTTP handling policy when HTTPS is enabled.	HTTPToHTTPS
`https_ports`	No	HTTPS listen ports (defaults to [443]).
`ssl_protocol`	No	Enabled TLS protocol versions.
`hsts_include_subdomains`	No	Include subdomains in HSTS header.

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 disclose that this tool is not read-only and is not destructive, but the description adds the useful prerequisite that the SSL certificate must already exist in 1Panel and be referenced by ssl_id, and it names the features that get toggled (HSTS, HTTP3). It still does not say what happens on disable (whether the certificate binding is removed, or HTTPS is merely turned off), whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens when options conflict; for a live-site mutation, that is a real gap even with non-destructive annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler that states the primary action and the toggle-off variant. It is efficient, though it could have used one more short clause to cover ordering or prerequisites instead of stopping at the destructive-free description.

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 ten-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition plus full schema coverage is enough to invoke it correctly. What is missing is behavioral context: the effect of disabling on existing certificate/config state and confirmation of what is returned on success.

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, and the description only reinforces two of the ten (ssl_id and enable). It adds the conditional 'ssl_id required when enable is true' (also in the schema) but says nothing about ports, TLS protocols, http_config, nodeId, or HSTS subdomains, so it adds little beyond the structured data.

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?

Names a concrete verb and object ('Bind an existing 1Panel SSL certificate to enable HTTPS/HSTS/HTTP3 on a website') and covers the inverse mode ('or disable HTTPS (enable: false)'). An agent can tell this is a write/configuration tool rather than the sibling read tool, though it never names get_website_https as the read-side counterpart.

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 fairly implied: use it after you have a certificate ID from list_ssls to turn HTTPS on, or pass enable=false to turn it off. There is no explicit when-not guidance (for example, no pointer to get_website_https for checking the current HTTPS state) and no notes on whether the site must already exist or what settings get overwritten.

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