Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hcloud-mcp

hcloud-mcp

by Xodus-CO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

change_zone_protection

DestructiveIdempotent

Enable or disable delete protection on a cloud zone to prevent accidental deletion, and return an Action for tracking the change.

Instructions

Enable/disable delete protection on a zone. 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>",
      "delete": "<delete>"
    },
    "name": "change_zone_protection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
zoneYesZone ID or name, e.g. example.com
deleteYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true. The description adds useful return-type information ('Returns an Action') where no output schema exists, but it does not clarify the asymmetric risk of disabling protection, permissions, or effects beyond the toggle.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the operation is front-loaded. 'Returns an Action' is terse but informative; the only weakness is that the brevity contributes to missing parameter clarity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema and an ambiguous boolean parameter, the description omits critical details: what disabling protection makes possible, what 'Action' contains, and how the boolean maps to enable vs disable. It is too thin for the tool's risk profile.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50%, and the description does not compensate. In particular, the boolean `delete` parameter is undocumented and ambiguous: it could mean 'enable delete protection' or 'allow deletion', and the description does not resolve this.

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 pair (enable/disable) and resource (delete protection on a zone), which distinguishes it from sibling protection tools scoped to rrsets or storage boxes. It is clear, though 'delete protection' could be marginally clearer as protection against zone deletion.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on preconditions or exclusions. The enable/disable phrasing implies usage but does not route the agent among the several sibling protection-changing tools.

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