Detach a Hetzner Cloud volume from its current server to free it for reattachment later. Specify the volume ID and optionally wait for the action to complete.
Detach Volume
Detaches a Volume from the Server it’s attached to. You may attach it to a Server again at a later time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the Volume. | |
| 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 flag this as a non-read-only, destructive, open-world action. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting the detachment is reversible—the Volume can be attached to a Server again later—which reassures the agent that this is not data loss. It does not mention permission requirements or polling behavior, but the schema already documents the wait parameter.
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?
Two short sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the reversibility note is a useful compact addition rather than filler.
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 mutation action with rich annotations and complete schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavior and the key reversibility property. It does not explain the wait/polling mechanism, but that is documented in the schema, so the description is nearly complete.
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 both parameters (id and wait) are fully documented elsewhere. The description does not add any parameter-level detail, such as what the id refers to or how wait interacts with the action lifecycle, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (Volume) and clarifies it removes the Volume from its attached Server. It implies the inverse operation, hcloud_volume_attach_action, but does not name or explicitly distinguish that sibling tool.
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 phrase 'Detaches a Volume from the Server it’s attached to' implies the precondition that the Volume must be currently attached, and the note about reattaching later hints at temporary detachment. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as hcloud_volume_attach_action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.