Ploi.io MCP Server

Create Ploi server

ploi_create_server

Provision a new provider-backed Ploi server by providing valid credentials, plan, and region.

Instructions

Create a new provider-backed Ploi server. Use account provider tools first to discover valid credentials, plans, and regions.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "plan": "<plan>",
      "region": "<region>",
      "credential": "<credential>"
    },
    "name": "ploi_create_server"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Server name.
`plan`	Yes	Provider plan ID.
`type`	No	Server type to install.	server
`region`	Yes	Provider region ID.
`credential`	Yes	Server provider credential ID.
`php_version`	No	PHP version to install, for example 8.4.
`webhook_url`	No	Webhook called when server installation completes.
`database_type`	No	Database type to install.	mysql
`webserver_type`	No	Webserver type to install.	nginx
`install_monitoring`	No	Whether to install monitoring.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds that it creates a server but no further behavioral details (e.g., async completion, return values). Given annotation coverage, the description provides adequate but minimal added transparency.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no extraneous information. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the primary action and prerequisite steps. It does not explain return values or async behavior, but for a creation tool with sibling context, it is reasonably complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

All 10 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, only general guidance about discovering credentials, plans, and regions.

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 'Create a new provider-backed Ploi server', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'ploi_create_custom_server' by emphasizing 'provider-backed'.

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?

The description explicitly advises to 'Use account provider tools first to discover valid credentials, plans, and regions', providing prerequisite guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context implies the custom server creation tool is an alternative.

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