Nginx Proxy Manager MCP

update_proxy_host

Modify an existing proxy host's configuration, including domains, forwarding, SSL, and security options, using its unique ID.

Instructions

Update an existing proxy host

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": {
      "host_id": "<host_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_proxy_host"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`host_id`	Yes	The ID of the proxy host to update
`domain_names`	No
`forward_scheme`	No
`forward_host`	No
`forward_port`	No
`certificate_id`	No
`ssl_forced`	No
`block_exploits`	No
`advanced_config`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.14.0Mar 22, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like partial vs full update, idempotency, or prerequisites. It provides none, offering only the bare minimum verb+resource.

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 with one sentence. It is front-loaded but lacks any structure. It is not verbose, but the brevity is insufficient.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain return behavior, required fields beyond host_id, or update semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 9 parameters but only 11% description coverage. The description adds no parameter explanation, leaving most fields undefined. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 'Update an existing proxy host' clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (proxy host), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create or delete. However, it lacks specificity about what fields can be updated.

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 (e.g., when to use update vs create or delete). The description gives no context for decision-making.

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

Deploy Server