@kognar/nginx-manager-mcp-server

Update 404 host

npm_update_dead_host

Update a 404 host's configuration, including domain names, SSL settings, and advanced options.

Instructions

Update a 404 host.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "npm_update_dead_host"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`meta`	No
`ssl_forced`	No
`domain_names`	No
`hsts_enabled`	No
`http2_support`	No
`certificate_id`	No
`advanced_config`	No
`hsts_subdomains`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update a 404 host' with no mention of side effects, permissions, idempotency, or whether the update is a full replacement or partial merge. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but this brevity comes at the cost of informativeness. It is under-specified rather than efficiently structured, lacking any useful details.

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 (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), a one-sentence description is wholly inadequate. The agent lacks critical information to correctly invoke the tool.

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 adds no meaning to any of the 9 parameters. The agent cannot infer the purpose of fields like meta, ssl_forced, or domain_names from the description alone.

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 'Update a 404 host' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (404 host), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, or enable for dead hosts. However, it does not elaborate on what a 404 host is, but the name and context make it recognizable.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like npm_create_dead_host (creation) or npm_enable_dead_host (enabling). The agent receives no context on prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

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

Deploy Server