Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hcloud-mcp

hcloud-mcp

by Xodus-CO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

add_network_route

Idempotent

Adds a network route that directs traffic for an RFC1918 or 0.0.0.0/0 destination CIDR to an internal gateway IP.

Instructions

Add a route to a network: traffic for destination is sent to gateway. destination must be an RFC1918 range or 0.0.0.0/0 and must not overlap subnets or other routes; gateway must be an IP inside the network (not its first IP, not 172.31.1.1). Returns an Action

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "destination": "<destination>",
      "gateway": "<gateway>"
    },
    "name": "add_network_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNetwork ID
gatewayYesGateway IP inside the network, e.g. a server's private IP 10.0.1.2
destinationYesDestination CIDR, e.g. 10.100.1.0/24 or 0.0.0.0/0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), and the description adds real value on top: the validation rules that cause rejection, the reserved-address exclusions for the gateway, and the return value ('Returns an Action'). It does not discuss permissions or what happens on conflict beyond the overlap check, which keeps it from 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?

Front-loaded with the action and its effect, then validation constraints, then the return value; every clause carries information. It is a single dense run of text rather than being broken into discrete constraint statements, which costs a little readability but wastes nothing.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers effect, validation preconditions, reserved values, and the return type. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds constraints the schema does not carry: destination is restricted to RFC1918/0.0.0.0/0, gateway must lie inside the network, and specific addresses (first IP, 172.31.1.1) are forbidden. Those are meaningful semantic additions beyond the field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a route to a network') and immediately explains the semantics of the resulting route: traffic for destination is sent to gateway. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from address-space siblings such as add_network_subnet without inspecting schemas.

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?

The constraints give clear context for when the call is valid (destination must be RFC1918 or 0.0.0.0/0, must not overlap subnets or other routes, gateway must be inside the network). There is no explicit 'use X instead' routing and no statement of prerequisites such as the network needing to exist, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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