Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hcloud-mcp

hcloud-mcp

by Xodus-CO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

export_zonefile

Read-only

Export a primary DNS zone as a BIND zone file to back it up or review all records at once.

Instructions

Export a primary zone as a BIND zone file (good for backups or reviewing all records at once)

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": "export_zonefile"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that only primary zones can be exported, but it never explains how the exported file is returned (inline text vs. download link) or whether large zones are truncated — a meaningful gap with no output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and output format, with the use case in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 read-only export tool this is close to complete: it states what is produced and its format. The main missing piece is the shape of the return value (file content vs. URL), which no output schema covers.

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 'zone' parameter is already documented with an example ('example.com'), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no syntax, format, or ID-vs-name guidance beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (Export), a specific resource (a primary zone), and a concrete output format (BIND zone file). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the inverse sibling import_zonefile, but the direction of the operation is unambiguous.

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?

The parenthetical 'good for backups or reviewing all records at once' gives usage context, but there is no statement of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer (e.g. per-record listing tools). Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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