loginToVpsPanel: Generate a one-time login URL to the VPS control panel (VirtFusion) for managing the server. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instanceId | Yes | VPS instance id from listMyVpsInstances. | |
| sessionKey | No | Session key (osk_...) returned by checkDeviceLoginStatus. Pass it on every call when logged in via the in-chat device flow; omit when connected via OAuth. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / instanceId / descriptionAdded value: +"VPS instance id from listMyVpsInstances."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations are uninformative — all four hints are false — so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds genuine context beyond the annotations: the URL is one-time, it targets VirtFusion, and authentication is mandatory. It does not disclose side effects on existing sessions or URL expiry, but the one-time trait is the key behavioral disclosure.
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?
Two sentences totalling about 21 words, with the verb and object front-loaded ('Generate a one-time login URL') and the authentication caveat as a compact second sentence. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
For a simple tool with 2 parameters (1 required), no enums, no nesting, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, target system, and auth requirement, while the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The return value (a one-time URL) is implied by the description. Minor gaps such as expiry behavior and session side effects remain, but nothing prevents a correct first call.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%; both instanceId and sessionKey are documented with provenance (listMyVpsInstances, checkDeviceLoginStatus) and a pass/omit rule. The description itself contributes no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('one-time login URL to the VPS control panel (VirtFusion)'), making the operation concrete and distinct from nearby auth-flow siblings like loginWithDevice and checkDeviceLoginStatus via the VirtFusion scope. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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?
The description states a prerequisite ('Requires authentication') and implies the use case ('for managing the server'), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The more useful routing guidance (include sessionKey for the in-chat device flow, omit for OAuth) lives in the parameter schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resource-action pairs, but there are several overlapping clusters: six domain-suggestion tools (addPrefixToDomain, addSuffixToDomain, generateDomainSuggestions, bulkDomainSuggestions, spinDomainWords, suggestAlternatives) and overlapping account-info tools (getMyProfile, getAccountSummary, getRecentActivity, getMyAuditLogs). Descriptions help, but with 105 tools an agent will regularly face near-identical choices.
The dominant convention is verbNoun camelCase (createContact, listDnsRecords, updateNameservers), which is readable and predictable. Deviations exist in the osirApp* and osirSite* families, where the noun precedes the verb, and a few names like suggestAlternatives and spinDomainWords break the pattern.
105 tools is far beyond a coherent MCP server surface; even if the platform genuinely spans domains, DNS, email, VPS, billing, and app hosting, this should be split into focused servers. Many tools are single-purpose getters that add selection overhead rather than earning their place as one integrated set.
The covered services have broad CRUD/lifecycle coverage: contacts, DNS, hosts, domains, email, VPS, SSH keys, invoices, and Osir apps all have create/read/update/delete paths. Some registrar-specific operations (e.g., contact reassignment after registration, domain deletion/redemption) are missing, and the sheer sprawl makes coverage hard to verify.