Retrieve a list of your OVH cloud projects. Use this to view all projects associated with your account.
Get cloud projects
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "ovh_get_cloud_projects"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but fails to mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. This is a critical gap for safe operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at three words, but this brevity sacrifices explanatory power. It lacks structure (e.g., no paragraphs or bullet points). While short, it could be more informative without being lengthy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It does not explain what is returned (e.g., list of project IDs or full metadata), error conditions, or scope. This leaves the agent underinformed for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. A score of 3 is appropriate as the baseline expectation is met without added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get cloud projects', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like ovh_get_bills or ovh_get_vps, but lacks any additional context about what cloud projects represent in OVH.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, common scenarios, or explicitly exclude other tools. The distinction relies entirely on the resource name, which is insufficient for an agent to decide with confidence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.