Enable a Load Balancer's public interface to make it accessible from the internet via its public IPs.
Enable the public interface of a Load Balancer
Enable the public interface of a Load Balancer. The Load Balancer will be accessible from the internet via its public IPs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the Load Balancer. | |
| wait | No | Poll the resulting action until success/error or timeout. |
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=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by explaining the consequence — internet-reachable via public IPs — but says nothing about the operation being asynchronous (returning an action), cost implications, or whether existing connections/state is affected.
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?
Very short, but the first sentence is repeated verbatim as the opening of the second sentence, wasting roughly half the text. Front-loading is fine; there is simply redundancy that a single clean sentence would avoid.
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 two-parameter action tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is close to sufficient: the agent knows what changes and what the end state means. The main omission is the asynchronous action/return semantics, which is partly hinted at by the 'wait' parameter but not explained.
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% and both parameters ('id', 'wait') are documented in the schema, so the description cannot add much. It contributes nothing at all about 'id' or the polling behavior controlled by 'wait', leaving the schema to do all the work — baseline 3.
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 ('Enable the public interface of a Load Balancer') and adds the observable effect ('accessible from the internet via its public IPs'). It is clearly the inverse of the sibling hcloud_load_balancer_disable_public_interface_action, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
No conditions for use are given: no prerequisites (e.g. Load Balancer must be attached to a network or have public IPs assigned), no when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to the disable sibling or to waiting via hcloud_wait_action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.