Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hcloud-mcp

hcloud-mcp

by Xodus-CO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

set_firewall_rules

DestructiveIdempotent

Overwrite all rules on an existing firewall to control inbound and outbound traffic by specifying direction, protocol, ports, and source or destination CIDRs.

Instructions

Set rules on an existing firewall (overwrites all rules). Same rule format as create_firewall.

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>",
      "rules": "<rules>"
    },
    "name": "set_firewall_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFirewall ID
rulesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description pins down the exact blast radius: every existing rule is replaced, not merged. That is genuine added context beyond the hints. It still omits permission requirements and propagation behavior.

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, zero filler, and the destructive caveat is front-loaded in parentheses right after the action so it cannot be missed.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and a nested rule array, the definition covers the overwrite contract but leaves the rule payload underspecified, forcing a cross-reference to create_firewall. Acceptable but not complete for a tool whose main complexity is the rules array.

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 50%: `id` is documented and the nested rule fields carry enums but no prose for port/protocol/direction. The sentence "Same rule format as create_firewall" is a useful pointer but offloads the real semantics to another tool, so it only partially compensates.

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 ("Set rules on an existing firewall") and adds a defining scope note ("overwrites all rules"), which distinguishes it from an incremental rule update. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead (e.g. update_firewall), leaving that distinction implicit.

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?

"existing firewall" and "overwrites all rules" imply the precondition and the destructive trade-off, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus update_firewall or create_firewall beyond the format reference. The reader must infer the decision rule.

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