site_set_php_versionSwitch a site to another installed PHP version on aaPanel. Verify extensions afterward, as some may be missing in the target version.
Switch a site to another installed PHP version. Extensions available in one version may be missing in another, so verify afterwards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | Yes | Target PHP version from site_php_versions. | |
| siteName | Yes | Primary domain of the site. |
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 flag this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds a real behavioral caveat beyond them: extensions may differ between versions, so the agent should verify after switching. It still omits whether the site is restarted or when the change takes effect.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one caveat that matters. No filler.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description gives an agent enough to act correctly, including the post-change verification step. Only minor gaps remain, such as restart/rollback behavior.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema, including that version should come from site_php_versions. The description's 'installed PHP version' is consistent but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: switching a site to another installed PHP version. This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like site_php_versions and site_php_version, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage context is implied by 'switch a site to another installed PHP version' and the 'verify afterwards' caveat, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives such as site_php_versions for discovering valid targets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.