Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hcloud-mcp

hcloud-mcp

by Xodus-CO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_zone

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently removes a DNS zone and all its records from Hetzner Cloud; confirm with the user first because the action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Delete a DNS zone and ALL its records. Irreversible; confirm with the user first. 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": "delete_zone"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description still adds real value beyond them: the deletion cascades to all records in the zone, the effect is irreversible, and the return value is an Action. 'Irreversible' does not conflict with idempotentHint, which concerns repeat-call behavior rather than undoability.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste; the destructive scope is front-loaded before the confirmation warning. Nothing needs to be re-read or parsed twice.

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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, reversibility, the user-confirmation step, and the return type. Only the alternative record-level deletion path is left unaddressed.

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% and the single parameter already documents that it accepts a zone ID or name with an example. The description adds no additional meaning about the zone argument, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the cascade scope: 'Delete a DNS zone and ALL its records.' The 'ALL its records' clause implicitly separates it from record-level deletion such as delete_rrset, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear usage condition and pre-call requirement: irreversible, confirm with the user first. It does not name an alternative for the narrower case (deleting individual records via delete_rrset), so the when-not guidance is incomplete.

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