Enable or disable Hetzner Cloud rescue mode for a server, optionally passing SSH key IDs and waiting for the action to complete.
Toggle Hetzner rescue mode on a server. When enabling, defaults type to 'linux64' and accepts ssh_keys (array of SSH-key ids). Hand-tuned wrapper.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| type | No | linux64 | |
| wait | No | ||
| enable | Yes | true to enter rescue, false to leave. | |
| ssh_keys | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior (default type is 'linux64', ssh_keys are SSH-key IDs) beyond the structured data, but omits that entering rescue mode reboots/reconfigures the server and what the 'wait' flag does; 'Hand-tuned wrapper' is vague filler.
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?
Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the schema. The trailing 'Hand-tuned wrapper' adds no actionable information and could be cut.
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 5-parameter, destructive, open-world action with no output schema, the description covers the essentials (id + enable, type default, ssh_keys) but leaves 'wait' unexplained and does not position this tool against the enable/disable siblings. Adequate to call, incomplete for correct tool selection.
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 coverage is only 20% (only 'enable' is documented), so the description must compensate. It does explain the default 'type' and the meaning of 'ssh_keys', but says nothing about 'wait' (default true) or the 'id' parameter, leaving two of five parameters ambiguous.
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: 'Toggle Hetzner rescue mode on a server.' An agent knows exactly what it acts on. However, it never names its near-duplicate siblings hcloud_server_enable_rescue_action and hcloud_server_disable_rescue_action, so there is no differentiation from those tools.
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 guidance on when to use this toggle versus the dedicated enable/disable rescue siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g. server must be off/rebooted). The 'toggle' framing plus the 'enable' boolean implies usage but leaves the choice between this and the two _action siblings entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.