1Panel에 자동으로 웹사이트를 배포하기 위한 MCP(Model Context Protocol) 서버입니다.
[!중요] 현재 이 프로젝트는 실험적 프로젝트이므로 직접 사용할 수 없다는 의미는 아닙니다.
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1SjQRY3EmM/
Related MCP server: mcp-1panel
1Panel 서버에 웹사이트 배포를 자동화합니다.
아직 존재하지 않는 웹사이트를 생성합니다.
1Panel에 정적 웹사이트 파일을 업로드합니다.
MCP 표준 프로토콜과 완벽하게 호환됩니다.
이 서버를 Cursor IDE와 함께 사용하려면 다음 MCP 구성을 추가하세요.
커서 열기
.cursor/mcp.json 생성합니다.
지엑스피1
Cursor에서 AI 채팅에 다음 명령을 사용하여 웹사이트를 배포할 수 있습니다.
Deploy to 1Panel with domain=yourdomain.com또는 다음 형식을 사용할 수 있습니다.
Deploy website to 1Panel server, domain: yourdomain.com1Panel에 웹사이트를 배포합니다.
매개변수:
domain (필수): 웹사이트 도메인
buildDir (선택 사항): 빌드 디렉토리 경로
응답:
Successfully deployed to 1Panel!
Domain: yourdomain.com
URL: http://yourdomain.com
Upload statistics:
- Total files: 25
- Successfully uploaded: 25
- Failed to upload: 0빌드 디렉토리 확인 : 지정된 빌드 디렉토리가 있는지 확인합니다.
웹사이트 생성 : 1Panel API를 통해 새로운 정적 웹사이트가 존재하지 않을 경우 생성합니다.
파일 업로드 : 빌드 디렉토리의 모든 파일을 웹사이트로 업로드합니다.
통계 : 업로드 프로세스에 대한 자세한 통계를 반환합니다.
배포 문제가 발생하면 다음을 확인하세요.
API 키가 유효하고 충분한 권한이 있는지 확인하세요.
웹사이트 디렉토리가 존재하고 쓰기 권한이 있는지 확인하세요.
더 자세한 오류 정보는 1Panel 서버 로그를 확인하세요.
파일 업로드가 실패하는 경우 파일 권한 또는 형식 문제가 원인일 수 있습니다.
Deploy website to 1Panel server
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Website domain | |
| buildDir | Yes | Build directory name (e.g. /Users/username/project/dist, /Users/username/project/build) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions deployment but fails to describe what this entails—whether it's destructive, requires authentication, has side effects, or involves rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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 description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the complexity of a deployment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or error handling, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and implications.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the action ('Deploy') and target ('website to 1Panel server'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, without sibling tools, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It merely states what the tool does without any usage context, which is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
deploy_websiteScored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct by default.
The single tool name follows a clear verb_noun pattern (deploy_website), which is consistent within the set. Since there is only one tool, there is no inconsistency to evaluate.
A single tool is too few for a server named '1Panel MCP Server', which implies broader panel management capabilities beyond just website deployment. This minimal toolset feels thin and under-scoped for the apparent domain.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a panel server, lacking essential operations like managing servers, applications, databases, or monitoring. With only a deploy_website tool, there are significant gaps that will cause agent failures in handling typical panel tasks.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Build, edit, host, and publish websites from AI assistants. Setup: https://mcp.orivox.org/
MCP server for AI agents to plan, verify, and deploy Cloudflare-native apps.
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.
