Change the payment term (billing cycle) for a VPS instance. Requires authentication. Required: instanceId (string), paymentTerm ('MONTHLY', 'SEMI_ANNUAL', 'ANNUAL', 'BIENNIAL', 'TRIENNIAL')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instanceId | Yes | ||
| sessionKey | No | Session key (osk_...) returned by checkDeviceLoginStatus. Pass it on every call when logged in via the in-chat device flow; omit when connected via OAuth. | |
| paymentTerm | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only adds 'Requires authentication' and lists required inputs. It does not disclose whether the change is immediate, prorated, reversible, subject to restrictions, or what side effects might occur on the existing billing cycle.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the required parameters and valid values. The 'Requires authentication' and 'Required:' parts are somewhat redundant with the schema and annotations, but the overall structure is easy to scan.
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?
This is a mutating billing operation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description doesn't mention effects, error cases, or authentication flow details. Given the operation's financial impact, an agent needs more context to invoke it safely and correctly.
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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds the allowed paymentTerm values ('MONTHLY', 'SEMI_ANNUAL', 'ANNUAL', 'BIENNIAL', 'TRIENNIAL') and repeats instanceId's type, but it does not explain how to obtain a valid instanceId or any constraints on changing between terms.
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 states a specific action ('Change the payment term') and targets a clear resource ('a VPS instance'), with the synonym 'billing cycle' to remove ambiguity. No sibling tool appears to do exactly this, but the description doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from related billing or VPS tools.
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 implies the tool is used when someone wants to change a VPS's billing cycle, but it gives no guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to related tools like orderVps, createPaymentSession, or payInvoice. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set has several near-duplicate or heavily overlapping tools: initiateTransfer and transferDomain appear to do the same thing, and generateDomainSuggestions, bulkDomainSuggestions, suggestAlternatives, spinDomainWords, and addPrefix/addSuffixToDomain all occupy suggestion space. Account/profile tools like getAccountSummary, getMyProfile, getRecentActivity, and getMyAuditLogs also blur together.
Many tools follow verb_noun camelCase (createDnsRecord, listInvoices, updateContact), but the broader set mixes styles: osirAppCreateUpload vs osirAppList vs osirAppStatus, plus inconsistent verbs like check/verify/validate/preview for similar lookup actions. The naming is readable but not predictable across the full surface.
105 tools is an extreme count for any single MCP server, even one spanning domain registration, DNS, VPS, email, billing, app deployment, and site publishing. The surface would be far more coherent split into focused servers by domain.
Core domain, DNS, billing, VPS, mail, and app deployment workflows are broadly covered. However, there are notable gaps: no way to update or reassign the contacts on an existing domain, no update operation for host/glue records, and no VPS power operations like reboot or stop outside the external control panel.