@kognar/nginx-manager-mcp-server

Create stream

npm_create_stream

Create a TCP or UDP stream that forwards traffic from an incoming port to a forwarding host and port, with optional SSL certificate.

Instructions

Create a TCP/UDP stream.

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": {
      "incoming_port": "<incoming_port>",
      "forwarding_host": "<forwarding_host>",
      "forwarding_port": "<forwarding_port>"
    },
    "name": "npm_create_stream"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`meta`	No
`incoming_port`	Yes
`certificate_id`	No
`tcp_forwarding`	No
`udp_forwarding`	No
`forwarding_host`	Yes
`forwarding_port`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create', implying resource creation, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or idempotency. No behavioral details are provided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, very concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it less useful. It could be slightly longer to include key constraints.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter roles, default behaviors, and return value information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the 7 parameters, including required ones like incoming_port, forwarding_host, and forwarding_port. The meta nested object is also undocumented.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('TCP/UDP stream'), differentiating from siblings like npm_create_proxy_host which handle HTTP/HTTPS. However, it does not specify the context (e.g., Nginx Proxy Manager) or elaborate on the scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like npm_create_proxy_host or npm_create_redirection_host. The description does not mention suitability for non-HTTP traffic.

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

Deploy Server