Start a new troubleshooting check for a Contabo vserver by specifying the object, object type, and check template. Use it to initiate diagnostics and track the check via an optional trace ID.
Start check [POST /v1/troubleshooting/checks] Start a new check
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body | |
| x-trace-id | No | Identifier to trace group of requests. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations: it doesn't say whether the check runs asynchronously, whether it consumes quota, or what state a repeated invocation would create.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ('Start a new check') merely restates the name and title, so one of only two sentences carries no information. Conciseness here comes from under-specification rather than economy.
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?
The tool has only two top-level parameters, a fully described schema, and no output schema, so the structured fields cover much of the burden. Still, for a non-idempotent, open-world mutation that kicks off a troubleshooting job, the description should have said what happens after the call.
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 100% with per-field descriptions inside the nested body object, so parameter meaning is fully carried by the schema. The description contributes no extra semantics (e.g., that checkCollectionId is optional or how it interacts with checkTemplateId); baseline 3 applies.
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?
It gives a verb and resource ('Start a new check') plus the backing endpoint (POST /v1/troubleshooting/checks), so the operation is identifiable. But it never explains what a 'check' is in this product, nor distinguishes the tool from close siblings like start_ext_check_collection, start_ext_remedy, or get_ext_check.
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?
There is no guidance on when to start a check versus a check collection or a remedy, no prerequisites (checkTemplateId / checkCollectionId come from list_ext_check_collection_templates), and no note about how to follow up (poll get_ext_check?). The agent must infer all of this from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.