OVHcloud MCP Server

ovh_api_raw

Make raw HTTP calls to any OVH API endpoint. Specify method, path, optional JSON body, and query parameters for advanced control.

Instructions

Call any OVH API endpoint directly (advanced)

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_raw"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`method`	No		GET
`path`	Yes	API path (e.g. /vps, /me, /domain/zone/example.com/record)
`body`	No	JSON body for POST/PUT
`query`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Jun 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Call any OVH API endpoint' but omits critical details like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The 'advanced' tag hints at complexity but doesn't elaborate.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it lacks structure: no bullet points or sections. It is front-loaded with the core action but could be more informative without adding length.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (4 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or advanced usage. The missing method and query parameter details reduce completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 50% schema description coverage, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the 'method' enum or 'query' object, leaving gaps that the schema itself partially covers for 'path' and 'body'. The description should compensate but does not.

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 verb 'Call' and the resource 'any OVH API endpoint directly', distinguishing it from sibling tools that target specific endpoints. The '(advanced)' qualifier further clarifies it is for non-standard use.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for endpoints not covered by dedicated tools but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs. siblings, nor does it warn against misuse. It provides minimal context for selection.

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