hetzner_get_pricingRetrieve current Hetzner Cloud prices by resource category or traffic, including currency and VAT for filtered results.
Get current Hetzner Cloud prices, optionally selecting one resource category or traffic prices. Currency and VAT rate are included with filtered results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource | No | Resource category to return; omit for all prices |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Input schema / properties / resourceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Resource category to return; omit for all prices",
+ "enum": [
+ "server_types",
+ "load_balancer_types",
+ "volume",
+ "floating_ips",
+ "primary_ips",
+ "traffic",
+ "image",
+ "server_backup"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that currency and VAT are included with filtered results, but with no output schema it says nothing about the structure of the returned prices, leaving a real gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every clause carries information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-optional-parameter, read-only pricing lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the optional filter, and one response detail (currency/VAT). It would be fully complete if it hinted at the returned price structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the enum values and the 'omit for all prices' behavior are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that a category can be selected, adding no syntax or meaning beyond it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Hetzner Cloud prices'), and clarifies it can be scoped to a resource category. No sibling tool deals with pricing, so an agent can unambiguously identify it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage via 'optionally selecting one resource category or traffic prices,' which maps to how the parameter should be used, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not context or alternatives. Adequate but leaves usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.