Datto RMM MCP Server

Set site proxy

datto_set_site_proxy

Create or update a site's proxy settings by specifying host, port, type, and optional authentication credentials.

Instructions

Create or update the proxy settings 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": {
      "siteUid": "<siteUid>",
      "host": "<host>",
      "port": "<port>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "datto_set_site_proxy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`host`	Yes	Proxy host
`port`	Yes	Proxy port
`type`	Yes	Proxy type
`siteUid`	Yes	Site UID
`password`	No	Proxy password
`username`	No	Proxy username

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It states 'Create or update' but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the site does not exist, or how existing settings are merged. Essential behavioral traits are missing.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is short and to the point, but could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is barely adequate. It confirms the action but omits key context like return value, error handling, or effect on existing settings. It is sufficient for a simple tool but lacks depth.

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%, so each parameter already has a basic description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as relationships between parameters (e.g., username/password are optional). Baseline 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 verb ('Create or update') and the resource ('proxy settings for a site'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like datto_delete_site_proxy and datto_get_site_settings.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not mention required site existence or scenarios where other tools (like datto_update_site) might be preferable.

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

Deploy Server