Remove specific handle
removeHandleDestructive
Remove specific handle - Remove specific handle
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handleId | Yes | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes |
Contabo (VPS) MCP Server
by ai.com.mcp
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed1 schema field changed
- removed
Input schema / properties / x-hapi-auth-stateRemoved value: -{ - "type": "string" -}
- First observed
TDQS
D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (destructiveHint=true) already indicate the destructive nature, but the description adds no context about effects, reversibility, or side effects. It offers nothing beyond what annotations already disclose, missing opportunities to clarify what 'remove' implies.
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 unnecessarily redundant, repeating the same phrase twice. While it is short, the duplication wastes the limited space and violates the principle that every sentence should earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no output schema, the description should clarify scope, permanence, and any related impacts. It does none of these. The tool appears straightforward, but the description is too minimal to be considered complete for agent decision-making.
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 does not mention any parameter. The agent gets no guidance on what handleId means or how to provide it, nor are the x-request-id/x-trace-id identifiers explained. This leaves parameter semantics entirely unspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a direct restatement of the title ('Remove specific handle - Remove specific handle'), adding no new information. It is a tautology rather than an explanatory clarification, even though the underlying operation is clear from the phrase.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like updateHandle or setDefaultHandle. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusivity, or situations where another tool might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
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.