OVHcloud MCP Server

ovh_api_endpoint_detail

Get full details for any OVHcloud API endpoint, including parameters, types, and descriptions.

Instructions

Get full details for a specific API endpoint (parameters, types, descriptions)

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "ovh_api_endpoint_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	API endpoint path (e.g. /vps/{serviceName}/snapshot)
`method`	No		GET

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Jun 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description implies a read-only operation but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden but is minimal.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about output format or edge cases. It covers the basic purpose but could be more informative.

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?

Schema coverage is 50% with both parameters having some description (path has an example, method has enum but no description). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves full details for a specific API endpoint, including parameters, types, and descriptions. It uses a specific verb and resource, and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ovh_api_catalog or ovh_api_search, the purpose is distinct enough.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ovh_api_catalog for listing endpoints or ovh_api_search for finding endpoints. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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