mcp-server-ovh

ovh_request

Make HTTP requests to the OVH API to manage cloud infrastructure, services, and account resources.

Instructions

Make a request to OVH API

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": {
      "method": "<method>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "ovh_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Request data for POST/PUT requests
`path`	Yes	API path (e.g., /me, /me/bill, /sms)
`method`	Yes	HTTP method (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.9Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations provided. The description 'Make a request to OVH API' does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool that interacts with an external API.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single sentence, concise but not front-loaded with critical info. It essentially restates the tool name without adding value, making it less useful despite brevity.

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

Completeness1/5

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

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain return values or error handling. Given the generic nature of the tool, more context about expected responses is necessary.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (method, path, data). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Make a request to OVH API', which identifies the tool as a generic API request tool. It implicitly distinguishes it from siblings that are specific to certain resources, but it could be more explicit about being a low-level alternative.

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 guidance on when to use this generic tool versus specialized siblings like ovh_get_bills or ovh_get_cloud_projects. The description lacks any context about preferred usage or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server