Laravel Forge MCP Server (Extended)

update_site_aliases

Update domain aliases for a site on a Laravel Forge server by providing server ID, site ID, and new list of aliases.

Instructions

Update domain aliases 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>",
      "aliases": "<aliases>"
    },
    "name": "update_site_aliases"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`siteId`	Yes	The ID of the site
`aliases`	Yes	Domain aliases
`serverId`	Yes	The ID of the server

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It omits whether aliases are replaced or appended, any side effects, or required permissions. The verb 'update' implies mutation but lacks detail.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. No wasted words.

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 simple mutation tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but fails to clarify the update behavior (replace vs append) or return value.

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% with descriptions like 'The ID of the site' and 'Domain aliases'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('domain aliases for a site'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like list_sites or create_site.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., obtain_letsencrypt_cert for SSL) or any prerequisites (e.g., site must exist).

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