aapanel-mcp

Read vhost config

site_get_config

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves the raw Nginx or Apache vhost configuration for a site to debug 502 errors or rewrites that are not taking effect.

Instructions

Raw nginx or apache vhost file for a site. Useful for debugging a 502 or a rewrite that is not taking effect.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "site_get_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Absolute vhost path, e.g. /www/server/panel/vhost/nginx/example.com.conf

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1-alpha.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that output is the 'raw' file (unparsed), which is useful, but says nothing about behavior when the path is invalid or missing, or about output size/format.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding; the resource statement is front-loaded and the debugging scenario follows it. It could be marginally tighter or fold the scenario into a clearer when-to-use clause, but there is no waste.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description only implies the return is raw file text — it does not note error behavior for bad paths or whether large configs are truncated. For a one-param read tool with full annotation coverage this is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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%; the single `path` parameter is already documented with an absolute-path example in the schema. The description does not add format or constraint detail beyond that, so it sits at the baseline of 3.

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 resource — the raw nginx/apache vhost file for a site — which is more concrete than a bare 'get'. It is less clear about how it differs from siblings like site_get, site_get_rewrite, or danger_read_file, so an agent must infer the scope from the name.

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 description gives a usage scenario ('debugging a 502 or a rewrite that is not taking effect'), which is genuinely helpful context for when to reach for it. However it names no alternatives (e.g., site_get_rewrite for parsed rules) and states no exclusions, so routing is only implied.

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

Deploy Server