Change Nginx Proxy Manager settings, including default site behavior, by providing a setting ID and value.
Update a setting (e.g., default site behavior)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | No | HTML content (required if value is "html") | |
| value | Yes | Setting value | |
| redirect | No | Redirect URL (required if value is "redirect") | |
| setting_id | Yes | The setting ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not disclose whether the update requires specific permissions, whether it is reversible, or what happens to unset fields. The conditional requirements (html needed when value='html', redirect needed when value='redirect') live only in the schema, leaving the description thin 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with no waste and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits what settings exist, whether changes are reversible, and any error or permission context. The schema covers parameters well, but the behavioral side is almost entirely absent.
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 100%, so setting_id, value, html, and redirect are already documented, including the enum and conditional requirements. The description adds only a loose hint about setting scope, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a clear verb+resource ('Update a setting'), and the parenthetical '(e.g., default site behavior)' hints at scope. However, it is vague about what a 'setting' actually is or which settings exist, so an agent can't fully distinguish the target from get_setting/list_settings beyond the obvious verb difference.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., npm_get_setting to read first, or npm_list_settings). The agent must infer that this is the mutation counterpart to get_setting purely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.