OVHcloud MCP Server

ovh_domain_dns_refresh

Force an immediate refresh of a DNS zone to apply recent changes without waiting for propagation delays.

Instructions

Force refresh a DNS zone

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_refresh"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`zone`	Yes	DNS zone (domain name, e.g. example.com)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Jun 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Force refresh' implies a write operation, but there is no mention of side effects (e.g., propagation delay, potential service disruption) or permissions required. The description is insufficient for an agent to assess risk.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is arguably too terse and could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the effect or consequences of refreshing a DNS zone, which is important for a mutation tool. A slightly more detailed description would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'zone', and the schema provides a clear description ('DNS zone (domain name, e.g. example.com)'). The description does not add additional 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?

Description clearly states the action ('force refresh') and resource ('a DNS zone'). The verb and resource are specific, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create, delete, or update, missing a chance to clarify the unique purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ovh_domain_dns_create or ovh_domain_dns_update. The description lacks context about situations that require a refresh (e.g., after manual zone edits).

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