Skip to main content
Glama
lazyants

hetzner-mcp-server

by lazyants
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Change Floating IP Reverse DNS

hetzner_change_floating_ip_rdns
Idempotent

Set or reset the reverse DNS PTR record for a Hetzner Cloud floating IP by providing its ID, IP address, and desired DNS PTR value or null.

Instructions

Change the reverse DNS entry for a floating IP. Set dns_ptr to null to reset.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFloating IP ID
ipYesIP address to set the reverse DNS entry for
dns_ptrYesReverse DNS PTR record value, or null to reset

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.0.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / dns_ptr / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / dns_ptr / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
  2. First observedv2.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the reset semantic for null, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about propagation delay, auth requirements, or what happens to the previous PTR record.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one non-obvious behavioral note. Nothing is wasted.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition covers the essentials plus the reset edge case. It is complete enough to call correctly, though the lack of sibling disambiguation is a minor gap.

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%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the null-to-reset behavior for dns_ptr. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: changing the reverse DNS (PTR) entry for a floating IP. It is clearly distinct from unrelated siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like hetzner_change_dns_ptr, hetzner_change_lb_dns_ptr, or hetzner_change_primary_ip_rdns.

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?

It states the reset behavior (set dns_ptr to null) but offers no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or routing between this and the several similarly named rDNS tools. The agent must infer scope from the name alone.

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