Skip to main content
Glama
julcap

nginx-certbot-mcp

by julcap
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_site_config

Read-only

Retrieve the raw nginx configuration for a domain from sites-available. Avoid errors by calling list_sites first to verify the domain exists.

Instructions

Get the raw, unparsed nginx config file for one domain from sites-available. Throws if no config exists for that domain - call list_sites first if you're not sure it exists.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain as it appears in sites-available, e.g. mysite.julcap.net

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
raw_configYesFull contents of the nginx config file, verbatim

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Previous value: -"The domain to look up, e.g. my.domain.com"New value: +"Domain as it appears in sites-available, e.g. mysite.julcap.net"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "domain": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "raw_config": {
+      "description": "Full contents of the nginx config file, verbatim",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "domain",
+    "raw_config"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it discloses the throw condition when the config is missing, and clarifies the output format as 'raw, unparsed' (implying no processing or validation). This goes beyond the annotations and provides actionable context for the agent.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero waste. The core action and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage guidance (throw condition and alternative) appears in the second. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with a single parameter, and the description covers the error condition and provides a fallback path. An output schema exists (though not shown), and annotations handle the read-only safety. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema already provides a clear description for the single 'domain' parameter ('Domain as it appears in sites-available, e.g. mysite.julcap.net') with 100% coverage. The tool description adds only the phrase 'for one domain,' which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the raw, unparsed nginx config file for one domain from sites-available.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_sites (which lists domains) and check_cert_expiry (which checks certificates). The scope is explicit — one domain, from sites-available — leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use it and when not to: 'Throws if no config exists for that domain - call list_sites first if you're not sure it exists.' This names the alternative (list_sites) and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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