mcp-server-ovh
Related Servers
Alternatives to mcp-server-ovh
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides AI models with structured access to external data and services, acting as a bridge between AI assistants and applications, databases, and APIs in a standardized, secure way.2-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for Proxmox Virtual Environment that enables AI assistants to manage virtual machines, containers, nodes, and resources through natural language interactions.3MIT
- AlicenseCqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server for the Hetzner Cloud API that enables natural language management of cloud infrastructure. Users can list, create, and modify servers, networks, volumes, and load balancers through MCP-compatible clients.6739MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables AI assistants like Claude to interact with Google Cloud Platform environments through natural language, allowing users to query and manage GCP resources during conversations.94,957200MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that connects AI assistants with the Kernel platform, enabling them to deploy applications, automate web browsers, and manage cloud resources.34MIT
- FlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server implementation that can be run directly or through Docker, enabling AI assistants to interact with external systems through the MCP standard.2-
TDQS
Scored across 16 tools
Most tools target distinct resources (bills, cloud projects, etc.) and are clearly differentiated. However, the generic `ovh_request` tool overlaps with all specific get tools, causing potential confusion for an agent in choosing between them.
All tools follow a consistent `ovh_` prefix. Get tools consistently use `ovh_get_<resource>`, while initialization and request tools use other verbs but still follow the same prefix and underscore pattern, making the naming predictable.
With 16 tools, the server covers a broad set of OVH resources without being overwhelming. This count is well-suited for an API wrapper, providing focused functionality for common operations.
The tool set is heavily skewed toward read-only operations (all get tools) and lacks any specialized write tools (create, update, delete). The generic `ovh_request` tool can fill some gaps but is not a substitute for dedicated CRUD tools. This leaves significant gaps in the expected lifecycle coverage.