Ploi.io MCP Server

Create Ploi site

ploi_create_site

Create a new site on a Ploi server by providing server ID and root domain. Supports various project types like Laravel, WordPress, and more.

Instructions

Create a new site on a Ploi server.

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": {
      "server_id": "<server_id>",
      "root_domain": "<root_domain>"
    },
    "name": "ploi_create_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`server_id`	Yes	Ploi server ID.
`root_domain`	Yes	Root domain for the site.
`system_user`	No	System user that owns the site files.
`webhook_url`	No	Webhook called when site creation completes.
`project_root`	No	Project root path.
`project_type`	No	Application project type.
`web_directory`	No	Web directory path.	/public
`webserver_template`	No	Webserver template ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description aligns ('Create') but adds no new behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, rate limits, conflict behavior). With annotations present, the description is adequate but not enhanced.

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?

A single sentence of 9 words, front-loaded and free of redundancy. Every word is necessary and concise.

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 creation tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits prerequisites (e.g., server must exist), return value hints, and potential side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new site on a Ploi server,' using a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('site') in a clear context. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like ploi_list_sites, ploi_get_site, etc.

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, such as ploi_create_server or ploi_deploy_site. The agent receives no when/when-not advice.

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