Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aapanel-mcp

aapanel-mcp

by devochkaskustikom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Start a website

site_start

Start a stopped website in aaPanel by passing its site ID and primary domain, bringing the site back online.

Instructions

Bring a stopped site back online.

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>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "site_start"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesWebsite id.
nameYesPrimary domain of the site.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1-alpha.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the state precondition ('stopped') and the outcome ('back online'), but says nothing about idempotency behavior (starting an already-running site) or failure/reversal conditions.

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 short sentence with the state precondition and resulting outcome front-loaded; no filler whatsoever.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity two-parameter lifecycle toggle with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is essentially sufficient. Only minor gaps remain around re-starting a running site and the absence of an explicit pointer to site_stop.

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% for both required params (id, name), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no format or usage detail about the domain-name or id arguments, matching the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: bringing a stopped site back online. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling site_stop and distinct from site_create/site_delete, though it never names 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the precondition 'stopped site' — an agent can infer it applies to a halted site, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of what happens if the site is already running, and no named alternative.

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