site_php_versionsReturns every PHP version installed on an aaPanel server, with 00 for pure static, so you can pass a valid version when creating a site.
Every PHP version installed on the panel, with the "00" pseudo-version meaning pure static. Pass one of these versions when creating a site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1-alpha.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context with the '00' pseudo-version semantics, which annotations cannot express, but says nothing about return shape or ordering for a listing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with the core enumeration front-loaded and the edge-case explanation second. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only enumeration with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what comes back and what the special version value means. Only minor gaps remain around output ordering/format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. Nothing about parameters needs explaining.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states precisely what the tool enumerates: every PHP version installed on the panel, plus the special '00' pseudo-version for pure static. It is unambiguous about the resource, though it never distinguishes itself explicitly from the sibling site_php_version tool, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Pass one of these versions when creating a site' gives a clear consumption context, telling the agent this is a lookup feed for site_create. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating when not to use it, but the use case is easy to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.