Skip to main content
Glama

infomaniak_request_certificate

Destructive

Request or renew SSL certificates for your website on a web hosting. Supports free Let's Encrypt, paid Sectigo, or custom PEM certificates.

Instructions

Request a new SSL certificate (or re-issue / renew an existing one) for a site on a web hosting. Two-phase commit. Three types supported: free (Let's Encrypt, no extra fields), paid (Sectigo, requires certificate_id), custom (BYO PEM, requires certificate + private_key). Returns an operation_uuid; poll infomaniak_get_certificate to track progress.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hosting_idYesWeb hosting ID. Discover via infomaniak_find_site(domain) → hosting_id.
site_idYesSite ID on that hosting. Same source as hosting_id.
typeYesCertificate kind: `free` (Let's Encrypt, no extra fields), `paid` (pre-purchased Sectigo, requires `certificate_id`), `custom` (bring-your-own PEM, requires `certificate` + `private_key`). Default workflow: `free`.
certificate_idNoPre-purchased certificate ID. REQUIRED when type=`paid`, ignored otherwise.
certificateNoPEM-encoded leaf certificate. REQUIRED when type=`custom`, ignored otherwise. Multi-line string starting with `-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----`.
private_keyNoPEM-encoded private key matching `certificate`. REQUIRED when type=`custom`. Multi-line string starting with `-----BEGIN PRIVATE KEY-----` (or `RSA PRIVATE KEY`).
intermediate_certificateNoPEM-encoded intermediate CA chain. OPTIONAL for type=`custom` but recommended; without it some clients may fail trust validation.
confirmation_tokenNoToken from the prior plan response. Required on the apply phase only.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it as destructive (destructiveHint: true). The description adds value by explaining the two-phase commit, async behavior (returns operation_uuid, need to poll), and type-specific constraints.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. Key information is front-loaded (action and resource), with type details and follow-up action concisely stated.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral details (two-phase commit, async polling, type-specific requirements) and is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema: explains the two-phase commit, groups parameters by type, and clarifies default ('free'). This helps the agent understand conditional requirements.

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 clearly states the action ('request, re-issue, renew') and the resource ('SSL certificate for a site on a web hosting'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'infomaniak_delete_certificate' and 'infomaniak_get_certificate' by mentioning the latter for progress tracking.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use this tool (for requesting certificates), including the two-phase commit and type-specific requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for deletion) but the sibling context makes it clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Mogacode-ma/infomaniak-mcp-agent'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server