Retrieves a specific Hetzner Cloud firewall action by firewall and action ID. Use it to check the action status, with optional polling until success, error, or timeout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the Firewall. | |
| wait | No | Poll the resulting action until success/error or timeout. | |
| action_id | Yes | ID of the Action. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the description carries a lighter burden. The description adds genuinely valuable non-schema context: the operation is deprecated, with a pointer to the changelog. It stops short of mentioning the wait/polling behavior, but that is covered by the schema.
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?
Short and generally front-loaded, though the deprecation warning sits below the title line rather than leading. Every sentence contributes something; nothing is wasted.
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 simple read getter with full annotation and schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. The gap is that a deprecated tool should name its replacement or the preferred alternative (e.g., the list-actions or the newer action endpoint) so an agent can route correctly.
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 all three parameters (id, action_id, wait) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 and resource ('Get an Action for a Firewall') with the parent firewall scope made explicit. However, it does not differentiate itself from the very similar sibling tools hcloud_get_firewalls_actions_id and hcloud_get_firewalls_actions, so an agent must open schemas to tell them apart.
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 deprecation notice with a changelog link gives useful context about when this tool should be avoided, but no replacement tool or alternative is named. Beyond that, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the near-identical list/get siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.