Retrieve SSL certificates for your OVH domains. Get a list of all available certificates to manage your HTTPS security.
Get SSL certificates
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_ssl_certificates"
}
}| 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?
No annotations provided and the description is minimal. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as scope (e.g., per domain or all), required authentication state, or potential effects. The tool appears to be a read operation but lacks details.
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 (3 words) but under-specified. It is front-loaded, but the lack of detail makes it insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.
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?
The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, placing the entire burden on the description. The description does not compensate, leaving key details missing (e.g., return format, prerequisites, scope).
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, but the description is so brief it fails to provide any context about the tool's behavior, reducing it to a score of 3.
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 'Get SSL certificates' clearly states the action and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools that retrieve other OVH resources. It is specific enough to convey the general purpose.
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 like ovh_get_bills or ovh_get_cloud_projects. The sibling list is provided but no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.