OVHcloud MCP Server

ovh_domain_dns_create

Create a DNS record (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, etc.) for an OVH domain zone. Specify subdomain, target value, and TTL to manage DNS entries.

Instructions

Create a new DNS record

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": {
      "zone": "<zone>",
      "fieldType": "<fieldType>",
      "subDomain": "<subDomain>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "ovh_domain_dns_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`zone`	Yes	DNS zone (domain name, e.g. example.com)
`fieldType`	Yes	Record type: A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT, SRV, etc.
`subDomain`	Yes	Subdomain (empty string for root)
`target`	Yes	Record value (IP, hostname, text)
`ttl`	No	TTL in seconds

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 are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'create' (mutation) but lacks details on idempotency, error conditions (e.g., duplicate record handling), or side effects. The minimal description leaves critical unknowns.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is perhaps too terse for a creation tool; slightly more detail could be justified without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., record ID or confirmation). It does not. For a creation operation, this missing information reduces completeness.

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?

The input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning a baseline of 3.

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 'Create a new DNS record' clearly states the verb (create) and resource (DNS record). Sibling tool names like 'ovh_domain_dns_delete' and 'ovh_domain_dns_update' make the distinction unambiguous.

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 such as 'ovh_domain_dns_update' for modifying existing records. There are no prerequisites or context cues.

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