aapanel-mcp

Rewrite templates

site_rewrite_templates

Read-onlyIdempotent

List named rewrite rule templates for a site so AI agents can select the correct preset for WordPress, Laravel, ThinkPHP, and other frameworks.

Instructions

Named rewrite rule templates shipped with the panel (wordpress, laravel5, thinkphp, ...).

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": {
      "siteName": "<siteName>"
    },
    "name": "site_rewrite_templates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteName`	Yes	Primary domain of the site.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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. The description adds only that these are templates 'shipped with the panel', implying a static server-provided catalog, but says nothing about ordering, count, or whether entries vary per site.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource stated first and illustrative examples last. It is well sized for a trivial list tool, though it is a fragment rather than a full statement of action.

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 simple read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented single param, the description is minimally sufficient. It stops short of connecting the returned templates to the sibling that consumes them (site_set_rewrite), leaving the workflow implicit.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Primary domain of the site'), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about siteName or why a site is required to list global templates. Baseline 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?

The description names the specific resource (named rewrite rule templates) and gives concrete examples (wordpress, laravel5, thinkphp), so an agent knows this returns a catalog of available templates. However it uses no verb and does not differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like site_get_rewrite or site_set_rewrite.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious workflow (call this to discover valid template names before invoking site_set_rewrite). The agent must infer the purpose from the noun phrase alone.

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

Deploy Server