Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aapanel-mcp

aapanel-mcp

by devochkaskustikom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Disable SSL on a site

ssl_disable
Destructive

Remove SSL configuration from a site to revert it to plain HTTP. Requires the site's primary domain.

Instructions

Remove the SSL configuration from a site, returning it to plain HTTP.

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": "ssl_disable"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteNameYesPrimary domain of the site.
updateOfNoRequired by the panel; 1 acknowledges the change.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1-alpha.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 barrier is lower. The description usefully adds what is destroyed (SSL config) and the resulting state (plain HTTP), but says nothing about irreversibility, whether the certificate is deleted, or side effects like HTTPS downtime.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the effect is stated before the consequence. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the high-level effect and the annotations cover the safety profile, but it omits prerequisites, reversibility, and error/edge behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, with both siteName and updateOf documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as what siteName expects or why updateOf must be set.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Remove the SSL configuration from a site') plus the resulting state ('returning it to plain HTTP'). It is easy to distinguish from ssl_upload/ssl_deploy by the 'remove' verb, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as ssl_deploy or ssl_list. The agent must infer the context entirely from the tool name.

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