OVHcloud MCP Server

ovh_vps_monitoring

Monitor VPS performance by retrieving CPU and network usage statistics over customizable time periods.

Instructions

Get VPS usage statistics (CPU, network RX/TX)

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": {
      "serviceName": "<serviceName>"
    },
    "name": "ovh_vps_monitoring"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`serviceName`	Yes	VPS service name (e.g. vps-xxxxxxxx.vps.ovh.net)
`type`	No		cpu
`period`	No		lastday

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Jun 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It states only 'Get...statistics', which implies a read operation but provides no details on side effects, data freshness, rate limits, or permissions. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No redundant words or tangential information. Ideal structure.

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?

Despite simplicity, the description lacks return value details (no output schema) and does not mention that serviceName is required. It could be more complete for a monitoring tool by hinting at the response format or data granularity.

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 only 33% (serviceName described). The description adds partial meaning for 'type' by listing CPU and network RX/TX, but does not explain 'period' at all. The enum names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description could add more context.

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 (Get), resource (VPS usage statistics), and specific metrics (CPU, network RX/TX). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like ovh_vps_info (general info) and ovh_vps_list (list).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description alone does not help the agent choose between this and related monitoring tools.

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