hcloud-mcp

get_rrset

Read-only

Retrieve a specific DNS record set (RRSet) from a zone by record name and type. Use it to inspect DNS record details for a given zone, name, and type.

Instructions

Get one RRSet by name and type

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": "<name>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "get_rrset"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Record name relative to the zone: "@" for the apex, "www", "_acme-challenge", etc. Lowercase.
`type`	Yes
`zone`	Yes	Zone ID or name, e.g. example.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.1Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds nothing beyond them: no not-found behavior, no indication of what a returned RRSet contains (TTL, records), and no note on error semantics for an invalid name/type combination. For a lookup tool with no output schema, this leaves real gaps.

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 eight-word sentence with no filler and the key identifying parameters front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves no room for useful routing or return-value context.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what is returned, and it does not — an agent cannot tell whether the response includes TTL, record values, or protection status. It also omits the 'zone' parameter that is required for the call to succeed.

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 67%: 'name' and 'zone' are documented in the schema, while 'type' has an enum but no description. The description's phrase 'by name and type' confirms the identity keys but mentions neither 'zone' nor the enumeration of record types, so it adds only marginal meaning over the schema.

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 (Get) and resource (one RRSet) with clear identification keys (name and type), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate from siblings like get_zone or explain how it relates to the record-mutation tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_zone, or on prerequisites like whether the zone must exist or the record must be present. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Get'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server