Handsome Hosting

Resize a server

resize

Destructive

Move a running server to another plan by planId. A smaller plan is applied on this call (no charge, no refund; the machine reboots, usually within minutes). A larger plan needs the person: this mints an upsize approval, mails the link and returns actionId and approveUrl; the click charges the difference on their saved card (or opens the payment page) and the resize starts.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "serviceId": "<serviceId>",
      "planId": "<planId>"
    },
    "name": "resize"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`planId`	Yes	a plan this server can move to
`serviceId`	Yes	the id of a service on this account

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / planId / description

Previous value: -"from list_plans"New value: +"a plan this server can move to"

changedInput schema / properties / serviceId / description

Previous value: -"the service id from list_services"New value: +"the id of a service on this account"

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: downsizing is immediate with no charge or refund and causes a reboot, while upsizing mints an approval, emails a link, and may charge the saved card or open a payment page. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and gives the agent the operational consequences it needs.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then explains the two branches compactly. Every clause carries relevant operational meaning, and there is no redundant restatement of the name or annotations.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive mutation with billing and approval implications, the description covers both execution paths, the reboot consequence, the approval mechanism, and the returned actionId/approveUrl. With an output schema present, this is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented by the schema. The description still adds useful semantic context for planId by explaining that the target plan determines whether the resize is immediate or requires approval, though serviceId is not elaborated beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: moving a running server to another plan by planId. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as restart, list_plans, or deploy because it describes a plan-change operation and its two execution paths.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly explains the two usage scenarios: smaller plans take effect immediately, while larger plans require an approval flow. However, it does not explicitly route the agent to sibling tools such as list_plans for selecting planId or action_status for tracking the resulting approval/action.

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

All Handsome Hosting tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?