Add a host to 1Panel by specifying name, address, optional port, user, group, and authentication credentials for remote access.
Create host
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addr | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| port | No | ||
| user | No | ||
| groupID | No | ||
| authMode | No | ||
| password | No | ||
| privateKey | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about authentication requirements, what credentials (password vs privateKey) do, or side effects of creating a host.
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?
The two-word description is not concise-but-complete; it is under-specified for a 9-parameter mutation tool. Brevity here reflects missing information rather than efficiency.
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 9-parameter creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate; an agent cannot call it correctly from this text.
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 description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them -- nothing explains name vs addr, port defaults, authMode values, or the password/privateKey distinction.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ("Create host") with no added scope, target system, or distinguishing detail from siblings like create_host_group, update_host, or create_container.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_host_group or test_host_connection. No prerequisites or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.