OVHcloud MCP Server

ovh_domain_zone_info

Retrieve detailed information about a DNS zone for a specified domain, including records and configuration.

Instructions

Get DNS zone details

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_zone_info"
  }
}

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

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'Get DNS zone details', implying a read operation, but fails to disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or what the return value contains. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely short (4 words), which is concise, but it sacrifices clarity and completeness. It could be structured to include more context without increasing length significantly.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'DNS zone details' means—whether it returns metadata, records, or configuration. The agent cannot predict the output.

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 has one parameter with 100% coverage from its description. The tool description does not add new information beyond the schema's 'DNS zone (domain name, e.g. example.com)'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states 'Get DNS zone details', which clearly indicates a read operation on a DNS zone. However, it lacks specificity about what 'details' include, and among sibling tools like ovh_domain_dns_records and ovh_domain_dns_record_detail, the distinction is not explicit.

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_domain_dns_records or ovh_domain_dns_record_detail. The agent receives no context for decision-making.

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