Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hcloud-mcp

hcloud-mcp

by Xodus-CO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_certificate

Idempotent

Rename a certificate or replace its labels without changing certificate content. To rotate, create a new certificate, update the load balancer, then delete the old one.

Instructions

Rename a certificate and/or replace its labels (labels overwrite the whole set). The certificate content cannot be changed; to rotate an uploaded cert, create a new one, point the load balancer service at it, then delete the old one

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": "update_certificate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesCertificate ID
nameNo
labelsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that labels overwrite the whole set (a non-obvious data-loss behavior for callers who expect a merge) and that content is immutable. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness; the description adds the specific replacement semantics without covering auth/permission requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the mutation scope, then the critical overwrite warning, then the rotation alternative. No filler, and each clause carries information the caller needs to act correctly.

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 small mutation tool with no output schema, this covers mutability, replacement semantics, and the rotation escape hatch. It doesn't mention what the response returns (assumed the updated certificate) or whether duplicate names error out, which keeps it short of fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 33% schema coverage and a free-form nested labels object, the description does the heavy lifting: 'labels overwrite the whole set' tells the caller this is a full replacement, not a patch. The name parameter is only implicitly covered via 'Rename', and the id parameter adds nothing beyond the schema, but the critical ambiguity is resolved.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb-and-resource pair ('Rename a certificate and/or replace its labels') and immediately constrains scope by stating 'The certificate content cannot be changed.' An agent knows exactly which two fields are mutable without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states the when-not case for content changes and lays out the alternative rotation procedure: create a new one, point the load balancer service at it, then delete the old one. The only gap is that it describes the workflow rather than naming create_certificate/delete_certificate/update_load_balancer_service directly.

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