Nginx Proxy Manager MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Update Redirection Host

update_redirection_host

Modify writable settings on an existing redirection host by ID to change domains, destination, or redirect behavior, with dry_run previewing the NPM request before changes.

Instructions

Update writable settings on an existing redirection host by ID. Use this to change domains, destination, or redirect behavior; use enable_redirection_host or disable_redirection_host for status only. NPM receives the merged writable fields. Returns the updated host object with its redirect settings. Set dry_run=True to preview the exact request without changing NPM.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	ID of the redirection host, from the matching list tool.
`dry_run`	No	When True, return the exact request preview without changing NPM.
`ssl_forced`	No	Whether NPM redirects HTTP requests to HTTPS. For updates, omit to keep the current value.
`domain_names`	No	Domain names routed by this host or certificate. For updates, omit to keep the current value.
`preserve_path`	No	Whether to preserve the original request path in the redirect. For updates, omit to keep the current value.
`block_exploits`	No	Whether NPM enables its exploit-blocking option. For updates, omit to keep the current value.
`certificate_id`	No	NPM certificate ID to attach. Omit to keep the current value.
`forward_scheme`	No	Scheme of the redirect destination: http or https. For updates, omit to keep the current value.
`forward_http_code`	No	HTTP redirect status: 301, 302, 307, or 308. For updates, omit to keep the current value.
`forward_domain_name`	No	Destination hostname or URL for redirected requests. For updates, omit to keep the current value.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 schema fields changedv0.5.2Oct 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / block_exploits / description

Added value: +"Whether NPM enables its exploit-blocking option. For updates, omit to keep the current value."

addedInput schema / properties / certificate_id / description

Added value: +"NPM certificate ID to attach. Omit to keep the current value."

addedInput schema / properties / domain_names / description

Added value: +"Domain names routed by this host or certificate. For updates, omit to keep the current value."

addedInput schema / properties / dry_run / description

Added value: +"When True, return the exact request preview without changing NPM."

addedInput schema / properties / forward_domain_name / description

Added value: +"Destination hostname or URL for redirected requests. For updates, omit to keep the current value."

addedInput schema / properties / forward_http_code / description

Added value: +"HTTP redirect status: 301, 302, 307, or 308. For updates, omit to keep the current value."

addedInput schema / properties / forward_scheme / description

Added value: +"Scheme of the redirect destination: http or https. For updates, omit to keep the current value."

addedInput schema / properties / id / description

Added value: +"ID of the redirection host, from the matching list tool."

addedInput schema / properties / preserve_path / description

Added value: +"Whether to preserve the original request path in the redirect. For updates, omit to keep the current value."

addedInput schema / properties / ssl_forced / description

Added value: +"Whether NPM redirects HTTP requests to HTTPS. For updates, omit to keep the current value."

First observedv0.5.1Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses merge semantics ('NPM receives the merged writable fields'), the dry_run preview capability, and the shape of the result. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, which would be the remaining gap for a mutation 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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the core operation, the sibling routing, and the dry_run escape hatch are each front-loaded in priority order.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 10-parameter, single-required-id update tool with an output schema present, the description covers operation, alternatives, merge behavior, and the dry_run preview. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and return values are handled by the output schema.

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% and each field already documents its 'omit to keep the current value' behavior, so the description's merge note largely restates the schema. It adds only the high-level framing of which settings are relevant (domains, destination, redirect behavior) rather than new parameter detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with scope ('Update writable settings on an existing redirection host by ID') and immediately contrasts with the status-only siblings enable_redirection_host and disable_redirection_host. An agent can distinguish this from the enable/disable/delete redirection tool variants without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says what to use it for ('change domains, destination, or redirect behavior') and names the alternatives for the adjacent case ('use enable_redirection_host or disable_redirection_host for status only'). This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use routing statement.

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