hetzner-mcp-server

Create Server

hetzner_create_server

Create a Hetzner Cloud server with a specified type, image, and location, plus optional SSH keys, volumes, firewalls, labels, and network settings.

Instructions

Create a new server with the specified type, image, and configuration options.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name of the server
`image`	Yes	Image name or ID to use (e.g. "ubuntu-22.04", "debian-12")
`labels`	No	Labels as key-value pairs
`volumes`	No	Volume IDs to attach at creation
`location`	No	Location name (e.g. "fsn1", "nbg1", "hel1")
`networks`	No	Network IDs to attach the server to
`ssh_keys`	No	SSH key names or IDs to inject
`automount`	No	Auto-mount the volumes passed in "volumes" after attach
`firewalls`	No	Firewalls to apply to the server
`user_data`	No	Cloud-init user data (base64 or plain text)
`public_net`	No	Public network configuration
`server_type`	Yes	Server type name or ID (e.g. "cx22", "cpx11")
`placement_group`	No	Placement group ID
`start_after_create`	No	Start server after creation (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv3.0.0Oct 3, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / ssh_keys / items / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / ssh_keys / items / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
```

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.5.0Aug 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / automount / description

Previous value: -"Auto-mount volumes after attach"New value: +"Auto-mount the volumes passed in \"volumes\" after attach"

addedInput schema / properties / volumes

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Volume IDs to attach at creation",
+  "items": {
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedv2.2.0Jun 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and non-idempotency profile is covered by structured data. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral - no note about cost/billing, that creation is asynchronous and returns an action, or that calling it twice creates duplicate servers.

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 filler. It is appropriately terse, though that brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being purely efficient.

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?

For a 14-parameter create operation with nested objects and no output schema, this one-line description is thin. It omits cost implications, the async/action-based return, and any preconditions, leaving the agent to infer almost everything beyond what the schema and annotations supply.

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 14 parameters (including nested public_net and firewalls) are already documented in the schema. The description merely gestures at 'type, image, and configuration options' without adding format or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new server') and names the three key inputs (type, image, configuration options). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like hetzner_delete_server, hetzner_update_server, and hetzner_rebuild_server, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 hetzner_rebuild_server or hetzner_resize_server, and no mention of prerequisites (valid server_type/image, quotas, billing). The description only says what the tool does, not when to reach for it.

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

Deploy Server

Create Server

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools