mcp-server-ovh

ovh_initialize_client

Initialize the OVH API client by providing endpoint, application key, secret, and consumer key to enable cloud infrastructure management.

Instructions

Initialize OVH API client with credentials

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": {
      "endpoint": "<endpoint>",
      "appKey": "<appKey>",
      "appSecret": "<appSecret>",
      "consumerKey": "<consumerKey>"
    },
    "name": "ovh_initialize_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`appKey`	Yes	Application key from OVH
`endpoint`	Yes	OVH API endpoint (ovh-eu, ovh-us, ovh-ca, etc.)
`appSecret`	Yes	Application secret from OVH
`consumerKey`	Yes	Consumer key from OVH

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.9Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects on global state, or authentication requirements beyond the parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficient with a single sentence containing no wasted words, but it could be structured to include more context without harming conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an initialization tool with 4 required parameters, the description is minimally complete but lacks context on usage sequence, setup prerequisites, or whether it configures a global client.

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 100% and adequately describes each parameter; the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Initialize' and resource 'OVH API client with credentials', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools which perform data retrieval operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies initialization should occur before other OVH tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use (e.g., 'call once at start') or when not to use (e.g., 'do not call if already initialized').

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

Deploy Server