Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aapanel-mcp

aapanel-mcp

by devochkaskustikom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get one website

site_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a single website record by its given ID instead of paging the entire catalog—useful when the website ID was previously retrieved from sytsofthe_list_name_non_tool_list.

Instructions

Fetch a single site record by id. Cheaper and more reliable than paging the whole list when the id is already known.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "site_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesWebsite id from site_list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1-alpha.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds an efficiency/reliability rationale, but says nothing about error behavior, missing ids, or what the record contains.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is stated first, and the comparative guidance follows immediately.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. It could optionally mention behavior when the id is not found, but the gap is minor.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Website id from site_list.' The description reinforces that the id must be known but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single site record by id'), which is clear. It distinguishes itself from site_list by contrasting with 'paging the whole list,' but does not differentiate from other site_get_* siblings like site_get_config or site_get_ssl.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says when to prefer this tool over site_list: when the id is already known, and explains why (cheaper and more reliable than paging). It gives clear context but no exclusions or guidance against other site_get_* alternatives.

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