hcloud-mcp

change_rrset_protection

DestructiveIdempotent

Enable or disable change protection for a DNS RRSet to prevent modification or deletion, and return the resulting action.

Instructions

Enable/disable change protection on an RRSet (protected RRSets cannot be modified or deleted). 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": {
      "zone": "<zone>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "change": "<change>"
    },
    "name": "change_rrset_protection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Record name relative to the zone: "@" for the apex, "www", "_acme-challenge", etc. Lowercase.
`type`	Yes
`zone`	Yes	Zone ID or name, e.g. example.com
`change`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.1Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare mutability, destructiveness, idempotency, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that protected RRSets cannot be modified or deleted and that the call returns an Action.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is one compact sentence with a parenthetical clarifying the protection semantics, followed by the return type. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary wording.

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 a four-parameter mutation tool, the definition covers the core purpose, consequence of protection, and return type. It still omits permission requirements, side effects of changing protection, and explicit parameter guidance for type/change beyond what can be inferred.

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 50%, with zone and name documented in the schema but type and change undocumented there. The description clarifies the change boolean via 'enable/disable' and the resource implies the type/name/zone relationship, but it does not fully compensate for the remaining parameter documentation gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: enable/disable change protection on an RRSet. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named change_protection or change_zone_protection siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use this to protect or unprotect an RRSet. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as zone-level protection.

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

Deploy Server