Skip to main content
Glama

Contabo (VPS) MCP Server

by ai.com.mcp

Stop compute instance / resource by its id

stop
Destructive

Stop compute instance / resource by its id - Stopping a compute instance / resource is like powering off a real server. So please be aware that data may be lost. Alternatively you may log in and shut your compute instance / resource gracefully via the operating system. If the compute instance / resource is already stopped nothing will happen. You may check the current status anytime when getting information about a compute instance / resource.

Input Schema

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

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data may be lost, the operation is idempotent (no-op if already stopped), and a status-check alternative exists. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single paragraph with purposeful sentences: main action, analogy, warning, alternative, idempotency, and status check. It is slightly repetitive with 'compute instance / resource' but remains concise and front-loaded with the intent.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the operation's effect, data-loss risk, graceful-shutdown alternative, and idempotency. However, it lacks differentiation from the sibling 'shutdown' tool and does not explain the request headers (x-request-id, x-trace-id). Given the existence of 'shutdown' and the 0% schema coverage, this is a notable gap.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'by its id', hinting at instanceId, but does not explain x-request-id or x-trace-id, nor the format/meaning of the required request ID. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently construct the request.

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 action (stop by id) and uses the power-off analogy to convey the hard-stop behavior. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tools 'shutdown' or 'restart', leaving some ambiguity about when this tool is the appropriate API choice.

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 implies when to use the tool (for a hard stop) and suggests an alternative (graceful OS shutdown), but it does not explicitly name the 'shutdown' tool or provide clear when-not-to-use guidance. The context is helpful but lacks explicit comparison to sibling API operations.

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