Protect cPanel-hosted files from unauthorized hotlinking by allowing specified referrer URLs and file extensions, with an optional redirect for blocked requests.
Enable hotlink protection
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | Comma-separated list of allowed referrer URLs | |
| extensions | No | Comma-separated file extensions to protect | jpg,jpeg,gif,png,bmp,svg |
| redirect_url | No | URL to redirect blocked requests to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but 'Enable hotlink protection' only restates the tool's name and reveals nothing about side effects, requirements, or effects on existing configurations.
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 a single concise sentence with no waste, but it is minimal and does not add context beyond the name.
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 tool with three parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description should explain what enabling hotlink protection entails, but it does not address the parameters, prerequisites, or relation to get/disable tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Enable') and resource ('hotlink protection'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like disable_hotlink_protection and get_hotlink_protection.
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 versus its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.