Skip to main content
Glama
lazyants

hetzner-mcp-server

by lazyants
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Server Metrics

hetzner_get_server_metrics
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch CPU, disk, and network time series metrics for a server within a given time range to monitor performance and diagnose issues.

Instructions

Retrieve time series metrics (CPU, disk, network) for a server over a time range.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesServer ID
endYesEnd of period, ISO 8601 timestamp (e.g. "2025-01-02T00:00:00Z")
stepNoResolution of metric samples in seconds, e.g. 60
typeYesComma-separated metric types: "cpu", "disk", "network"
startYesStart of period, ISO 8601 timestamp (e.g. "2025-01-01T00:00:00Z")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / step
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Resolution of metric samples in seconds, e.g. 60",
+  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. First observedv2.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description usefully adds that only three metric families are returned and that the result is time-bounded, but says nothing about retention windows, maximum range, sampling defaults, or response size.

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 or repetition. It is well-sized for a read-only retrieval tool, though it is terse enough that a clause about the time-range requirement or output shape would have fit without bloat.

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 metrics-fetch tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential what/where/when. Remaining gaps (return format, resolution defaults, retention limits) are real but secondary for an idempotent read operation.

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 five parameters (id, type, start, end, step) are already documented with examples and constraints. The description's mention of CPU/disk/network loosely maps to 'type' and the time range to start/end, but it adds no format or default information beyond the schema, so 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 ('Retrieve'), resource ('time series metrics'), the metric families (CPU, disk, network), the target (a server), and the temporal scope. It implicitly separates itself from hetzner_get_lb_metrics by saying 'for a server', but never names the sibling, so the distinction must be inferred.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'for a server over a time range' framing, and an agent can guess this is for reading historical performance data. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no signposting toward hetzner_get_lb_metrics as the alternative for load balancers, which is the main risk of mis-selection here.

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