OVHcloud MCP Server

ovh_domain_dns_records

List DNS records for a domain zone, with optional filters by record type or subdomain to quickly locate specific entries.

Instructions

List DNS records for a zone (optionally filter by type or subdomain)

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>"
    },
    "name": "ovh_domain_dns_records"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`zone`	Yes	DNS zone (domain name, e.g. example.com)
`fieldType`	No	Filter by record type (A, CNAME, MX, TXT, etc.)
`subDomain`	No	Filter by subdomain (www, @, mail, etc.)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Jun 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('List'), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the zone must exist, rate limits, or response format. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and optional filters. No redundant words or structure.

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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. However, it could briefly mention what the response contains (e.g., an array of record objects) to fully close the loop, though not strictly required.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds minimal value by restating the filtering capability. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no extra meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 (List) and resource (DNS records for a zone), and adds optional filtering by type or subdomain. It distinguishes this read-only list operation from sibling tools that create, delete, update, or get single records.

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 purpose is implied through the verb 'List', but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'Use this to retrieve records; for creating records use ovh_domain_dns_create'). No when-not to use conditions are provided.

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