mcp-remnawave

node_plugins_create

Create a new node plugin in the Remnawave VPN panel by specifying its name to add it for use.

Instructions

Create a new node plugin

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "node_plugins_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Plugin name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats that this is a creation operation, which is already implied by the tool name. It does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits, leaving the agent with no additional information.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The single sentence 'Create a new node plugin' is a near-tautology of the tool name and adds no new information. It is not front-loaded with any useful context, so the space is not used effectively.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fails to explain what a node plugin is, any constraints on the name, or what creation entails. The schema covers the parameter type, but there is no context about the resource or the operation's effect, making the description incomplete for an agent to understand the full scope.

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%: the 'name' parameter is documented as 'Plugin name' in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, but since the schema fully covers the only parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Create a new node plugin' states the verb and resource clearly, but it essentially repeats the tool name without adding any distinguishing detail. It does not differentiate from sibling creation tools for other resources, though the meaning is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is provided about prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would favor node_plugins_create over node_plugins_update or other creation tools. The description offers no usage direction whatsoever.

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

Deploy Server