Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aapanel-mcp

aapanel-mcp

by devochkaskustikom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Remove a domain

site_remove_domain
Destructive

Unbind a domain from a website without deleting the site, leaving other domains and site data intact.

Instructions

Unbind one domain from a site, leaving the site itself intact.

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>",
      "webname": "<webname>",
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "site_remove_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesWebsite id.
portNoPort that domain answers on.
domainYesDomain to remove.
webnameYesPrimary domain of the site.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1-alpha.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by defining the blast radius: only the domain binding is removed and the site survives, which is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 tight sentence with zero waste, and the scope-limiting clause is front-loaded where the agent will read it.

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?

For a destructive 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the annotations and full schema coverage carry most of the load and the description covers purpose and scope. It stops short of noting side effects the agent might care about, such as impact on SSL, DNS, or redirects attached to the removed domain.

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%, so id, webname, domain and port are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ("Unbind one domain from a site") and adds the disambiguating scope clause "leaving the site itself intact," which separates it from site_delete. It does not name the counterpart sibling site_add_domain, so it is clear but not explicitly differentiated by 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase "leaving the site itself intact" implicitly contrasts with site_delete, so the usage context is implied rather than stated, and no alternative tool is named.

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