mcp-1panel-plus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List Website Domains

list_website_domains

Read-only

Retrieves the domains and ports recorded for a specific website ID on a chosen node, helping verify bindings before configuring or troubleshooting the site.

Instructions

List recorded domains and ports bound to an explicit website ID 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": "list_website_domains"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	1-indexed page number.
`nodeId`	No	Target node ID: "local" for the Main Node, or a numeric string ID (e.g. "3") from list_nodes.	local
`page_size`	No
`website_id`	Yes	Numeric website ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping context (results are bound to an explicit website ID on a selected node), but says nothing about pagination defaults, empty-result behavior, or whether cross-node data can leak in.

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 no filler, and the key constraint (explicit website ID) plus the target scope (selected node) are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 read-only, non-destructive list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is nearly complete: the resource, the required identifier, and the node scope are all stated. The only minor gap is that page_size behavior is undocumented, though pagination is partially covered by the 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 coverage is 75%, with page and nodeId documented in the schema and page_size undocumented anywhere. The description reinforces that website_id must be explicit and that nodeId selects the target node, but adds no syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ("List") and resource ("recorded domains and ports") and scopes it to a website ID on a node, which is enough to tell it apart from list_websites and get_website. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with a sibling, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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: the agent can infer this is the tool to call when it already has a website ID and wants its domains. There is no statement of when to prefer list_websites, get_website, or list_website_proxies, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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