Update the PHP version for a specific domain in Panelica. Use this to change PHP settings for a domain via ID.
Update php
HTTP: PATCH /v1/domains/:id/php Category: Domains Required scopes: domains:write Mutating: changes server state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter: id | |
| body | No | Request body (application/json). Schema not statically declared — see API docs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / bodyAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Request body (application/json). Schema not statically declared — see API docs.",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal a mutating operation via readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the required scope 'domains:write' and explicitly warns that it changes server state. However, it does not disclose what gets modified, whether changes are reversible, or what errors or side effects may occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, well-structured, and front-loads the core action. The metadata lines for HTTP method, category, scope, and mutation are compact and scannable, though the extreme brevity contributes to the lack of semantic detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating PATCH tool with an open request body and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It identifies the endpoint and mutation flag but leaves the actual PHP update semantics, accepted body fields, and any constraints entirely unspecified, making correct invocation unlikely without external references.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the path parameter id and an open 'body' object whose schema is not statically declared. The description adds no information about what fields the body should contain, so an agent cannot construct a valid request body for this PATCH operation without consulting external API documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states an action ('Update') and a resource ('php') and the HTTP path clarifies it targets a domain's PHP configuration. It is distinguishable from the sibling read tool panelica_domains_get_v1_domains_id_php, though 'php' remains somewhat underspecified (version vs. settings vs. runtime options).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention the corresponding GET endpoint for reading current PHP settings, nor does it explain situations where a different PATCH or POST tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.