Skip to main content
Glama

Contabo (VPS) MCP Server

by ai.com.mcp

Provide a custom image

createCustomImage
Destructive

Provide a custom image - In order to provide a custom image please specify an URL from where the image can be directly downloaded. A custom image must be in either .iso or .qcow2 format. Other formats will be rejected. Please note that downloading can take a while depending on network speed resp. bandwidth and size of image. You can check the status by retrieving information about the image via a GET request. Download will be rejected if you have exceeded your limits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
x-trace-idNo
x-request-idYes
createCustomImageBodyYes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, destructive operation; the description adds valuable behavioral details: format restrictions, rejection of other formats, asynchronous download with status check via GET, and quota-based rejection. This goes beyond the annotations but does not address all potential side effects.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes (format constraint, timing, status check, limits). It is slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema and a nested body parameter, the description covers the key user-facing concerns: required URL, supported formats, potential delays, monitoring via GET, and quota limits. It does not specify the response shape but implies the created resource can be retrieved.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema provides descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds crucial semantics for the 'url' parameter by specifying direct download URL and format constraints. It does not add meaning for name, osType, or version, but schema descriptions cover them sufficiently.

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 tool's purpose: 'Provide a custom image' and explains the mechanism (URL download). It differentiates from siblings like createInstance or createSnapshot by focusing on custom image creation from an external URL. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear procedural context: specify URL, accept .iso/.qcow2, and be aware of download time and limits. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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

All Contabo (VPS) MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have clearly distinct CRUD roles per resource, but there are several confusing overlaps: start/stop/restart/shutdown/rescue are similar lifecycle actions, and there are duplicate audit tools like retrieveImageAuditsList and retrieveImageAuditsList1 (one even mislabeled as DNS Zones audit). Additionally, retrieveTagAuditsList appears to duplicate retrieveAssignmentsAuditsList, and updateDnsZoneRecord incorrectly says 'Create resource record'. These overlaps and mislabeled descriptions make it hard to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

The naming is a mix of camelCase verb_noun patterns, but inconsistent. Some tools use 'retrieveXList' while others use 'listX', some use 'Cancel' with a capital letter, and 'tool_search' uses snake_case. Numeric suffixes like 'retrieveImageAuditsList1' and verbs like 'patchInstance' instead of 'updateInstance' further break consistency.

Tool Count1/5

With 124 tools, this is an extremely large tool surface for an MCP server. Even for a broad cloud provider API, this overwhelms an agent's context and selection capabilities. The number far exceeds reasonable scoping and creates unnecessary selection overhead.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of resources thoroughly: instances, snapshots, images, private networks, object storage, DNS, domains, tags, roles, users, secrets, and audits. Most resources have create/retrieve/update/delete lifecycle operations, and there are extensive audit history tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit instance deletion besides cancel, no separate firewall management beyond upgradeInstance), but overall the surface is quite complete for its domain.

Resources