Detach an ISO image from a Hetzner Cloud server by server ID, optionally waiting for the resulting action to complete.
Detach an ISO from a Server
Detaches an ISO from a Server. In case no ISO Image is attached to the Server, the status of the returned Action is immediately set to success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the Server. | |
| 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?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation. The description adds a useful idempotency detail (action succeeds immediately if no ISO is attached). However, it does not clarify whether the ISO image itself is deleted or merely detached, which is critical given the destructive annotation.
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?
The description is front-loaded with a clear one-line summary, followed by a second sentence that adds the idempotency behavior. It is efficient, though the first line duplicates the tool name and the second sentence repeats the opening phrase redundantly.
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 action tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is mostly complete. It explains the no-ISO edge case but omits reassurance that the ISO image is not destroyed, which would be valuable given the destructive hint.
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 fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage.
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?
The description states a specific verb (Detach) and resource (ISO from a Server), making the operation unmistakable. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling hcloud_server_attach_iso_action or other ISO tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The note about immediate success when no ISO is attached is a behavioral edge case, not a usage guideline; there is no mention of prerequisites or the attach counterpart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.