Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hcloud-mcp

hcloud-mcp

by Xodus-CO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_load_balancer

Read-only

Retrieve a single load balancer from Hetzner Cloud by its ID to inspect its configuration and details.

Instructions

Get a single load balancer by ID

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": "get_load_balancer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on what happens for a nonexistent ID (null vs error), no permission requirements, no freshness/consistency behavior — noteworthy since openWorldHint implies live external state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, structured key-first. It is terse to the point of omitting useful context, but nothing is redundant.

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 simple single-record read with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema required, this is nearly adequate. The main gaps are the error behavior for an invalid ID and how to source the ID, which matter for a live open-world fetch.

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 coverage is 0% with one required numeric parameter, so the schema documents nothing. The description only clarifies that 'id' is the load balancer identifier; it adds no format, range, or origin details (e.g., where to obtain a valid ID) beyond that.

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 ('Get a single load balancer') and the lookup key ('by ID'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_load_balancers. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly, but an agent can tell it is the single-object fetch.

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?

'by ID' implies the caller must already hold an identifier, likely from list_load_balancers, so usage is implied. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_load_balancer_metrics or other get_* siblings, and no stated preconditions.

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