EasyPanel MCP Server

by dannymaaz

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Hybrid

create_domain

Create a new domain and optionally attach it to a service, enabling a custom hostname for your deployment.

Instructions

Create a new domain, optionally bound to a service.

Args: name: Domain name (e.g. app.example.com) service_id: Optional service ID to attach the domain to

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`service_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a create/mutation operation and that binding is optional, but it says nothing about side effects, idempotency, validation, permissions, or failure behavior.

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 compact and well-structured: one purpose sentence followed by an Args list. There is no fluff or repetition, and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return value details are not necessary. However, with no annotations, the description omits behavioral details and prerequisites for the optional service binding, making it adequate but not fully complete for a mutating tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that name is a domain name with an example and service_id is the optional service to attach. This adds real semantic meaning beyond the raw schema types, though it stops short of ID format or constraints.

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 names a specific action ('Create') and resource ('domain') in the first sentence, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_service, create_network, or create_project. It also adds the optional service binding, clarifying the exact scope of the operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The tool's purpose implies when to use it, but the description gives no explicit usage conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention how to obtain a valid service_id or whether certain domain names or service bindings are invalid.

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