Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hcloud-mcp

hcloud-mcp

by Xodus-CO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

enable_load_balancer_public_interface

Idempotent

Enable a load balancer's public interface to make it reachable from the internet via its public IPs and return the resulting Action.

Instructions

Enable a load balancer's public interface so it is reachable from the internet via its public IPs. 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>"
    },
    "name": "enable_load_balancer_public_interface"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesLoad balancer ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful signal beyond them: 'Returns an Action', telling the agent this is asynchronous. It does not mention security exposure implications or what happens if the LB has no public IPs.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and effect, followed by the return type. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 single-parameter mutation with annotations carrying the safety semantics and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, effect, and return type. The main gap is the absence of prerequisite state (existing public IPs) needed to invoke it successfully.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Load balancer ID'), so the schema fully documents it. The description contributes nothing further about the id, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns no credit above baseline.

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+resource combination ('Enable a load balancer's public interface') and the concrete effect ('reachable from the internet via its public IPs'). It does not name the sibling disable_load_balancer_public_interface as the inverse alternative, so differentiation relies on the name alone.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for making an LB publicly reachable, but there is no statement of prerequisites (e.g., public IPs must already be assigned), no when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to the disable counterpart.

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