Skip to main content
Glama
sanchayan721

contabo-mcp

by sanchayan721
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

contabo_users

Destructive

Manage Contabo users, roles, accounts, and S3 object storage credentials. Choose one operation to list, create, get, update, delete, or reset passwords.

Instructions

Contabo users, roles, accounts and object-storage credentials. Choose exactly one 'operation'; every operation has its own parameter set (validated per operation).

This server runs READ-ONLY: write operations are rejected until it is started with CONTABO_ENABLE_WRITES=1.

Operations:

  • list: List users

  • create: Create a new user

  • get: Get specific user by id

  • update: Update specific user by id

  • delete: Delete existing user by id [DESTRUCTIVE]

  • resetPassword: Send reset password email [DESTRUCTIVE]

  • resendEmailVerification: Resend email verification

  • generateSsoToken: Generate one time SSO token

  • getClient: Get client

  • generateClientSecret: Generate new client secret [DESTRUCTIVE]

  • isPasswordSet: Get user is password set status

  • requestEmailChange: Request email change

  • switchAccount: Switch user account

  • makeDefault: Make user account default

  • listAccounts: List of your accounts

  • listRoles: List roles

  • createRole: Create a new role

  • getRole: Get specific role by id

  • updateRole: Update specific role by id

  • deleteRole: Delete existing role by id [DESTRUCTIVE]

  • listApiPermissions: List of API permissions

  • listObjectStorageCredentials: Get list of S3 compatible object storage credentials for user.

  • getObjectStorageCredentials: Get S3 compatible object storage credentials.

  • regenerateObjectStorageCredentials: Regenerates secret key of specified user for the S3 compatible object storages. [DESTRUCTIVE]

Use the contabo_reference tool for full parameter documentation of any operation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) the description adds genuinely valuable context: the server rejects writes unless started with CONTABO_ENABLE_WRITES=1, and it flags each destructive operation inline with [DESTRUCTIVE]. It does not explain what a destructive call actually destroys, nor permission/auth requirements, so it stops short of a 5.

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 size is justified by 23 operations, and the key facts (resource scope, read-only gating, one-operation rule) are front-loaded before the enumeration. The operation list is terse and scannable, though a few entry descriptions are near-tautological (e.g. 'list: List users').

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 23 operations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, the read-only default, destructive flags, and where to find parameter docs. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only the sibling-routing and destructive-impact details left implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter per operation. The description adds only structural insight (one operation per call, per-operation validation) and defers detail to contabo_reference, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opening line names a concrete resource domain (users, roles, accounts, object-storage credentials) and the operation list makes the tool's scope unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as contabo_objectStorage or contabo_secrets, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear operating instructions: choose exactly one 'operation', params are validated per operation, and it routes the agent to contabo_reference for full parameter documentation. What is missing is explicit when-to-use-this-vs-sibling routing, e.g. when to pick this over contabo_objectStorage for credential tasks.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools