Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
APISIX-MCP

APISIX-MCP

by api7
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_ssl

Modify SSL certificate attributes like label, PEM format, SNI, client configuration, or validity timestamps using the APISIX-MCP server’s Admin API integration.

Instructions

Update specific attributes of an existing SSL certificate

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "update_ssl"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoSSL certificate ID
sslNoSSL certificate configuration object

Implementation Reference

  • src/tools/ssl.ts:15-17 (handler)
    The registration of the 'update_ssl' tool includes the inline handler function that executes a PATCH request to the Admin API to update specific attributes of an existing SSL certificate.
    server.tool("update_ssl", "Update specific attributes of an existing SSL certificate", UpdateSSLSchema.shape, async (args) => {
  return await makeAdminAPIRequest(`/ssls/${args.id}`, "PATCH", args.ssl);
});
  • src/schemas/ssl.ts:29-32 (schema)
    Zod schema definition for the 'update_ssl' tool inputs, consisting of an SSL certificate ID and partial SSL configuration.
    export const UpdateSSLSchema = createNullablePatchSchema(z.object({
  id: z.string().describe("SSL certificate ID"),
  ssl: SSLSchema.partial(),
}));
  • src/index.ts:27-27 (registration)
    Invocation of setupSSLTools function which registers the 'update_ssl' tool among other SSL tools on the MCP server.
    setupSSLTools(server);
  • src/schemas/ssl.ts:4-27 (schema)
    Base SSLSchema used in UpdateSSLSchema for SSL certificate configuration object.
    export const SSLSchema = z
  .object({
    label: z.string().optional().describe("SSL label"),
    cert: z.string().describe("SSL certificate in PEM format"),
    certs: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("SSL certificates in PEM format"),
    key: z.string().describe("SSL private key in PEM format"),
    keys: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("SSL private keys in PEM format"),
    sni: z.string().optional().describe("Server Name Indication"),
    snis: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("Server Name Indications"),
    client: z
      .object({
        ca: z.string().describe("SSL client CA certificate in PEM format"),
        depth: z.number().optional().default(1).describe("SSL client verification depth"),
        skip_mtls_uri_regex: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("URIs to skip mTLS verification"),
      })
      .optional()
      .describe("SSL client configuration"),
    type: z.enum(["server", "client"]).optional().default("server").describe("SSL type"),
    status: StatusSchema.optional().describe("SSL certificate status"),
    validity_start: z.number().optional().describe("SSL certificate validity start timestamp"),
    validity_end: z.number().optional().describe("SSL certificate validity end timestamp"),
  })
  .passthrough()
  .describe("SSL certificate configuration object");

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or potential side effects. For a security-related mutation tool, this lack of behavioral context is problematic.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and follows the principle of front-loading the essential information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of SSL certificate management and the security implications, more contextual information is needed.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters (id and ssl configuration object) thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying partial updates ('specific attributes'), which is already suggested by the schema's structure. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('specific attributes of an existing SSL certificate'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'create_ssl' by specifying it's for existing certificates, though it doesn't differentiate from other update tools like update_route or update_service beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the certificate ID), when not to use it, or what happens if the certificate doesn't exist. With multiple sibling update tools, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools

Related Tools