Laravel Forge MCP Server (Extended)

activate_ssl_certificate

Activate an SSL certificate for a Laravel Forge site to enable secure HTTPS connections.

Instructions

Activate an SSL certificate for a site

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": {
      "serverId": "<serverId>",
      "siteId": "<siteId>",
      "certificateId": "<certificateId>"
    },
    "name": "activate_ssl_certificate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`siteId`	Yes	The ID of the site
`serverId`	Yes	The ID of the server
`certificateId`	Yes	The ID of the certificate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description lacks details about the tool's behavior beyond 'activate'. It does not disclose effects on the site (e.g., downtime), reversibility, required permissions, or error conditions. Without annotations, this omission is significant for a state-changing operation.

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?

The description is extremely concise—one sentence with no wasted words. However, this brevity sacrifices useful context, making it less helpful than a slightly longer version that includes usage guidance.

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 3 required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'activate' means, what happens after execution, or potential preconditions. The tool's complexity warrants more detail.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already provides meaning. The description adds no extra context about how the IDs relate (e.g., certificate must belong to site). Hence 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Activate') and the resource ('SSL certificate for a site'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'obtain_letsencrypt_cert' or 'get_ssl_certificates', missing a chance to clarify that this tool assumes the certificate already exists.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites (e.g., certificate must exist and be for the given site) mentioned. The description does not state when not to use it, such as needing to obtain a certificate first.

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