hetzner-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.3.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or API action using clear prefixes (robot_, cloud_, storagebox_). List tools are uniquely named per resource, and the generic request tools are explicitly separate. No ambiguity between tools.
Naming Consistency5/5All tool names follow a consistent pattern: prefix_verb_noun in snake_case (e.g., robot_list_subnets, cloud_list_servers). Even the utility tool contribute_or_report fits the style. No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count3/5With 34 tools, the count is on the high side for a typical server, but it covers multiple Hetzner APIs (Robot, Cloud, Storage Box). The number is borderline but reflects the broad scope.
Completeness2/5The tool set is heavily read-only with only two mutation tools (server create/delete). Missing CRUD for other resources like networks, firewalls, volumes, load balancers, and any update operations. Generic request tools partially compensate but indicate significant gaps.
Average 3.6/5 across 34 of 34 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 34 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Inno Setup License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool is read-only and free, which is helpful, but it fails to disclose key behaviors like pagination, data freshness, or what 'compact' vs 'verbose' outputs differ. The description does not contradict annotations as there are none.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with only three fragments. Every word serves a purpose. However, it lacks structure and could benefit from a full sentence or bullet points. Overall, conciseness is good, but structure is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of nested objects in parameters, the description should elaborate on what 'locations' entails, the effect of parameters, and output format. It fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds the context 'Compact by default' which relates to the 'verbose' parameter, adding slight value beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the semantics of 'id' or 'query' further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List locations', identifying the verb ('List') and the resource ('locations'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling list tools targeting different resources. However, it could be more precise about what 'locations' refer to (e.g., datacenters, availability zones).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Read only, free' which implies safe usage without cost, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cloud_list_datacenters'. No mention of prerequisite context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses read-only (non-destructive) and free cost, but omits behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or response format details. The 'compact by default' hint is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three short sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, it could include slightly more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the response format, but only mentions 'compact by default.' It also ignores the query parameter behavior and integration with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes parameters clearly. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists single IPs and is specific to the robot context, distinguishing it from siblings like robot_list_subnets. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from cloud_list_primary_ips or other IP-related tools, relying on context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only mentions 'Read only, free,' which implies safe usage but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool names are given, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool is read-only and free, and that it returns a compact view by default. However, it does not disclose any other behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, or required permissions. The description is sparse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three short phrases in a single line. All information is front-loaded and no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 parameters with nested objects and no output schema. The description does not explain what a placement group is, nor what the compact vs verbose output contains. The agent lacks enough context to fully understand the return value or the meaning of parameters beyond their names. Significant gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating 'Compact by default,' which directly relates to the 'verbose' parameter, clarifying a behavioral aspect beyond the schema. This elevates the score to 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List placement groups', specifying the verb and resource. It also adds 'Read only, free, Compact by default' which provides scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools beyond the resource name, which is adequate but not exceptional.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Read only, free' implying it is safe and costless, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage context from the name and read-only hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'Read only, free' and 'Compact by default' beyond the schema, indicating safe read behavior and default view. However, it omits details about pagination, response structure, or any side effects, which is acceptable given no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose, the second adds behavioral traits, the third explains default view. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and 3 parameters, the description lacks explanation of response structure (list vs single item) and filtering via query. The 'compact by default' is helpful but incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds 'Compact by default' which clarifies the verbose parameter's default, but otherwise adds little meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get full pricing for the account currency' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on pricing, but does not clarify whether it returns a list or single item, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for retrieving pricing but does not specify context or exclude other uses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: 'Read only, free' indicates safety and cost, and 'Compact by default' hints at output format. However, it omits details like filtering behavior, error cases, or pagination, which are important for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with three short sentences. The first sentence efficiently states the purpose, and the following two add value. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 3 parameters (including nested object), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what floating IPs are, how query filtering works, or what the default vs verbose output contains. This lack of completeness may confuse an agent without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 3 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'Compact by default' loosely links to verbose parameter but is not precise). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List floating IPs' with a specific verb and resource. The name itself distinguishes it from sibling list tools targeting different resources (e.g., cloud_list_primary_ips, robot_list_ips). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from these siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'Read only, free' but does not specify scenarios or prerequisites. Sibling tools exist for other IP types but no decision support is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Read only, free' correctly indicates non-destructive behavior. However, other traits like pagination, rate limits, or data freshness are omitted. 'Compact by default' hints at output format but lacks detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with two short sentences. Every phrase adds value: lists the action, notes safety, and mentions default format. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters (including a nested object) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what images are, the differences between compact and full views, or how query parameters affect results. More context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds 'Compact by default' which maps to the verbose parameter but does not clarify its usage beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The phrase 'List images' clearly identifies the action and resource. However, with many sibling list tools (e.g., cloud_list_servers, cloud_list_networks), the description does not differentiate this tool from them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The statement 'Read only, free' implies safety but does not provide explicit context for selection among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only and free behavior, which is helpful. However, it does not describe side effects (none expected), rate limits, or output format beyond compact default. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and key traits. Efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with no output schema, the description lacks details on the return structure, pagination, or what 'compact' means. It is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'Compact by default' which relates to the verbose parameter, but does not elaborate beyond that. No additional meaning for id or query parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists Robot storage boxes and flags it as legacy. It mentions read-only and free. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'storagebox_list' tool, though the 'legacy' label hints at a newer alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The 'legacy' label is insufficient. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
States 'Read only, free' but doesn't elaborate on rate limits or what happens with the 'id' parameter. Lacks detail on impact of the 'query' parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four concise sentences, front-loaded with key purpose, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and minimal annotations leave gaps: missing pagination info, format of results, and explanation of query parameter behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already describes all parameters (coverage 100%). Description only restates 'compact by default' which overlaps with the verbose parameter description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'List subnets' – verb+resource pair is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like robot_list_servers or robot_list_vswitches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor when to opt for compact vs. verbose output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description declares the tool as 'Read only, free', which alerts the agent to its non-destructive nature and lack of cost—useful since no annotations are provided. It also notes 'Compact by default', hinting at output format. However, it omits details about pagination, rate limits, or the exact structure of compact vs full payloads.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word earns its place, avoiding fluff. However, it may be too sparse, omitting some potentially useful context like the exact scope (e.g., all zones or user's zones).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and the presence of nested objects in the input (query parameter), the description does not adequately explain the return value format or how to handle the query parameter. For a list tool, details like pagination or result limits are missing, making it incomplete for reliable agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described. The description adds minimal parameter semantics—only implying that compact output is default (opposite of verbose). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but the concise description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what's already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List DNS zones', specifying both the action and resource. It also identifies the tool as part of the 'Cloud API', which distinguishes it from robot_* siblings but not from other cloud_list_* tools that list different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the tool is 'Read only, free' and 'Compact by default', providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., other list tools for different resources), nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds 'Read only, free, compact by default', providing useful behavioral context beyond the name. However, no annotations exist, and details like pagination, rate limits, or what 'compact' means are missing, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: three short sentences with no filler. Every sentence contributes value, stating purpose, safety, and default behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers core aspects but lacks details on output format, filtering via query parameter, and any limits. Adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'Compact by default' explains the default behavior of the 'verbose' parameter, adding value beyond the schema. Other parameters are well-described in schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'List primary IPs', specifying both the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cloud_list_floating_ips, which also lists IPs on the Cloud platform.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Merely states 'Read only, free', which implies safety but does not provide context for decision-making or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Read only, free' (safe, no cost) but omits details on output format, pagination, authentication, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three short phrases) with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or how parameters like 'id' and 'query' work in practice.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds 'Compact by default' which aligns with the verbose parameter, but this is minimal additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'reverse DNS entries', distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other resources. The addition of 'Read only, free' further clarifies its nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for read-only reverse DNS listing and notes it is free, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use advice or mention alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description covers billing and the need for confirm, but omits details like start_after_create behavior (e.g., server starts by default), return format, or asynchronous nature. The provided traits are useful but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded with the core action. Could be slightly restructured for clarity but is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it fails to mention required parameters (name, server_type, image) as mandatory and does not address return values or location. The phrase 'Optionally attach' might mislead about required fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all 11 parameters have descriptions). The description merely lists optional attachments without adding new semantic details, so it does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action: 'Create a Hetzner Cloud server.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cloud_list_servers and cloud_delete_server. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for creating servers but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond requiring confirm=true.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description effectively conveys that the operation is read-only and free, and adds the default compact behavior. This provides key behavioral traits beyond 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with three fragments that each add value, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides basic context but lacks information on pagination, filtering via the query parameter, error handling, or output structure. It is minimally adequate for a simple list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mentioning 'compact by default', which relates to the verbose parameter, but does not detail other parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List cloud servers', which indicates the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, but the name is self-explanatory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is safe with 'Read only, free' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like cloud_list_volumes or cloud_list_networks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral clues: 'Read only, free' indicates a safe, no-cost operation, and 'Compact by default' explains default output verbosity. However, it omits details like pagination, ordering, or potential errors, leaving gaps in understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of three short sentences, each adding essential info: purpose, safety/free, and default behavior. No filler words; the most critical point comes first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers basic purpose and constraints but lacks details on response format (what a 'compact' view includes), pagination, or handling of the 'query' parameter. For a simple list tool with no output schema, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds minimal value ('Compact by default' hints at the verbose parameter's default behavior) but does not extend meaning beyond schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List SSH keys' clearly states the verb (List) and resource (SSH keys). The tool name matches and is distinct from sibling 'robot_list_ssh_keys', making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to list all keys vs fetch a single one, nor does it contrast with siblings like 'robot_list_ssh_keys' or other listing tools. The 'Read only, free' hint is useful but not enough for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Explicitly states 'Read only, free' providing key safety and cost info; 'Compact by default' clarifies default behavior despite no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise, front-loaded with purpose; could be slightly more structured but every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately covers key traits for a list tool (read-only, free, default compact) despite no output schema; lacks pagination details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline applies; description adds context for 'verbose' via default compact but adds no other param insight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states action 'list' and resource 'volumes', but doesn't differentiate from sibling list tools beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like cloud_list_servers; lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Declares 'Read only, free' indicating safety and cost, and 'Compact by default' hinting at the verbose parameter. However, no mention of rate limits, permissions, or pagination behavior. Annotations are absent, so description partially compensates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with three short sentences. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the core purpose. Lacks detail on query parameter usage and failover IP specifics. Adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameters id, query, verbose. Description only adds context about compact vs verbose via 'Compact by default'. Does not elaborate on id or query beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states 'List failover IPs', a specific verb and resource. Clearly distinguishes from sibling list tools like robot_list_servers or robot_list_ips.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling list tools exist for different resources, but no comparison or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses read-only and free nature (safety and cost), plus 'compact by default' regarding output format. However, lacks details on auth, rate limits, or behavior with optional id parameter beyond schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at one sentence, front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, but missing explanation of 'compact' format and query parameter usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 3 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only hinting at verbose vs compact via 'compact by default'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List storage boxes', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., storagebox_list_types) by targeting the storagebox resource directly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like storagebox_list_types or other list tools. No explicit context for usage or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that writes are guarded and that a confirm parameter is needed for billed resources. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, error handling, or response format beyond the verbose parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose statement. Every sentence serves a purpose: explaining usage, guards, and fallback. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and behavioral notes. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication, base URL, and typical usage patterns for a raw request tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the confirm parameter for billed resources and the verbose parameter for compact view, but this does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it calls any Hetzner Storage Box endpoint directly, using a relative path. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by implying it's for arbitrary endpoints. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other raw request tools like cloud_request or robot_request.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that reads are free and writes obey read-only and cost guards, giving some guidance. It also suggests using contribute_or_report if an endpoint is missing. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or clear alternatives for common operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description carries full burden. Mentions read-only, free, and compact by default, which are useful behavioral traits. However, does not elaborate on what compact means or any other side effects. Adequate but could be more detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at three short sentences. Each sentence adds unique information: purpose, read-only/free nature, and default output format. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and simple operation, the description is relatively complete but lacks details on the return values (e.g., what fields are in compact vs verbose mode). Could be more comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by noting 'Compact by default', clarifying the default behavior for the verbose parameter. This goes beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'List datacenters', which is a specific verb and resource. The description distinguishes from sibling tools like cloud_list_locations by specifying datacenters vs locations, though the difference is not explicitly clarified. Overall strong purpose clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Indicates it is read-only and free, suggesting it can be used without side effects or cost. No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but the context implies it's a safe list operation. Adequate for a simple list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'Read only, free' and 'Compact by default,' which disclose behavioral traits (safe, non-destructive, no cost, default output format) that are not provided by annotations. This is valuable context for agent decision-making.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence plus two phrases), no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines for behavioral notes). Still, it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers core purpose and key behavior (read-only, free, compact default). However, it does not explain the output format (compact vs verbose fields) or provide context for the query parameter's allowed keys, leaving gaps for advanced usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'Compact by default' which relates to the verbose parameter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema descriptions for each parameter. No extra semantic enrichment.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List storage box types' with a specific verb and resource. The name and description distinguish it from sibling tools that list other resources (e.g., servers, subnets, images).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, recommended usage context, or tool exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the resource name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only and free, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not detail rate limits, pagination, or the meaning of 'compact'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the core action. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks details about the return format or what 'compact' means. Given no output schema, additional explanation would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'certificates', distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other resources. It adds that it is read-only and free, further clarifying its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions or compare to other list tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes as 'Read only, free', which discloses safety and cost. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not mention pagination, error handling, or response structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with three clear phrases. No unnecessary words, front-loads the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple list tool but missing details on return format (e.g., array, pagination) and no output schema to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description only adds 'Compact by default' which hints at the verbose parameter but does not add substantial meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states 'List load balancers', a specific verb+resource. Sibling tools list various other resources, so it's clearly distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage as a list tool but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Lacks exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: 'Read only, free' indicates safe mutation and cost, and 'Compact by default' clarifies default output verbosity. However, it omits details on rate limits or authorization.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and every word adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks details on pagination, ordering, or how to use the query object, which would be helpful for full usability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds minor context with 'Compact by default' relating to the verbose parameter, but does not significantly enhance understanding of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List load balancer types' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other resources like servers or networks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only and free behavior, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with three short phrases, no wasted words, and front-loads the core purpose first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no output schema and full schema descriptions, the description is minimal but adequate. It does not cover return format or pagination, but add information beyond the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'Compact by default' which relates to the 'verbose' parameter, but otherwise does not add meaning beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'List Robot SSH keys' with a clear verb and resource. It also adds 'Read only, free, Compact by default,' which distinguishes it from other tools like robot_list_servers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Read only, free,' implying safe usage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like cloud_list_ssh_keys or provide any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description clearly states 'Read only, free' indicating safety and cost, and 'Compact by default' explains default output behavior. No contradictions or hidden side effects mentioned, but it could elaborate on the meaning of 'compact' versus 'verbose'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with three short fragments. Every word serves a purpose. However, it could benefit from slightly more structured phrasing (e.g., a complete sentence) while maintaining brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers read-only nature and default compact view. Missing details about what compact vs verbose returns, pagination, or any ordering. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'List vSwitches' with verb and resource. The addition of 'Read only, free' distinguishes it from mutation tools. It is specific and differentiates from sibling list tools for other resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Implicitly for listing vSwitches, but lacks context such as prerequisites or comparison with other list tools. The description does not provide exclusions or situational advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
In the absence of annotations, the description effectively discloses key behavioral traits: read-only nature, no cost, and default compact output. This goes beyond just stating the purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one sentence for key traits. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters (including a nested object) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the compact vs verbose format, nor how to use the id or query parameters effectively. Adequate but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds 'Compact by default' which clarifies the verbose parameter's behavior, providing marginal added value over the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List dedicated servers.' It specifies the verb (list) and the resource (dedicated servers), distinguishing it from sibling tools like robot_list_subnets or cloud_list_servers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Read only, free' implying safe usage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key traits: 'Read only, free. Compact by default.' This informs the agent of safety, cost, and default output format, adding value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—three short clauses—with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with optional parameters, the description covers essential behavioral aspects (read-only, free, compact default). It does not mention pagination, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by stating 'Compact by default,' which clarifies the default behavior of the 'verbose' parameter, exceeding schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('private networks'), using a specific verb and noun. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by specifying 'private networks'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cloud_list_servers' or 'robot_list_subnets'. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
In the absence of annotations, the description conveys that the tool is read-only, free, and defaults to a compact response. These are key behavioral traits that help an agent understand side effects and performance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely conveys the tool's purpose, safety, and default behavior. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with no output schema and three optional parameters, the description adequately covers purpose, safety, and default behavior. However, it does not describe the return format or specific specs included.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds context about the 'verbose' parameter (compact by default) but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List server types and specs', specifying the exact verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cloud_list_servers which list actual servers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it is safe to use anytime by stating 'Read only, free', but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over other list tools or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It describes the output (a link and steps) without mentioning side effects, implying a safe read-only operation. Could be more explicit about not modifying state, but is clear enough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two front-loaded sentences with no fluff. Each sentence adds value: first states trigger and output, second reinforces the value proposition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value and purpose. It covers the main use case of reporting gaps, though could mention whether the link is generated locally or requires an API call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds little extra. It reinforces the purpose but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reports missing or misbehaving Hetzner capabilities and returns a prefilled GitHub issue link and pull request steps. It distinguishes from sibling tools that list or manipulate resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says 'When a Hetzner capability is missing or misbehaving', providing a clear trigger. No exclusions are given, but the context makes it obvious when to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that deletion is free, stops billing, destroys server, requires confirm, and auto-created IPs are released. Does not mention potential side effects like attached volumes but covers key behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences. Front-loaded with purpose, then specific behavioral details. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-param tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, requirement, and side effect (IP release). Could mention irreversibility explicitly, but implied by 'destroys'. Overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (2 params). Description adds value by emphasizing that confirm must be true, which is critical for safety. Goes beyond schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'Delete' and resource 'Hetzner Cloud server'. Distinguishes from sibling list tools and cloud_create_server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Indicates that deletion stops billing and requires confirm=true. Also mentions that auto-created IPs are released, which guides usage context. Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives but sufficient for a delete tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior (no destructive actions), free cost, and default compact output, which adequately informs the agent about the tool's traits for a listing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with three short, front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value—no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety (read-only, free), and default output format. It lacks mention of pagination or full list behavior, but for a simple list operation this is generally sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool's description adds value by noting 'Compact by default', which relates to the verbose parameter's default behavior, providing extra context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'firewalls', distinguishing it from sibling tools. It also adds context like 'Read only, free, Compact by default' which clarifies the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides valuable usage context indicating it is a read-only, free operation with compact output by default, helping the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-only and free nature, and default compact behavior. This is good, though more detail on pagination or rate limits could help.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (3 short sentences), front-loaded with key points. No wasted words, every sentence contributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains compact vs full output but doesn't mention pagination or return fields. Still sufficient for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by stating 'Compact by default' which clarifies the verbose parameter's default behavior. This goes beyond schema info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('ISOs'), with additional attributes. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings which are for other resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context ('Read only, free') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The usage is straightforward for a list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses that reads are free, writes have safeguards, confirm parameter is needed for billed resources, and verbose controls response detail. It does not cover error handling or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then usage guidance and a fallback. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and fallback. It could elaborate on error responses but is adequate for a raw request tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), and the description adds value by explaining the confirm flag for billed resources, the verbose flag, and that body can be a JSON string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Call any Hetzner Cloud endpoint directly' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the fallback contribute_or_report tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides guidance on reads being free and writes obeying guards, and suggests using contribute_or_report for missing endpoints. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: reads are free, writes incur costs, the verbose flag controls output detail. It does not detail error handling or rate limiting, but is sufficient for a generic endpoint tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and example, no wasted words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description hints at response format (full vs compact). It covers endpoint usage, cost model, and fallback. Lacks detailed return structure, but acceptable for a raw request tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds operational context for path (example) and for confirm/verbose (billing and compact view), adding value beyond schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Call any Hetzner Robot dedicated servers endpoint directly' with a specific example. It distinguishes this generic tool from sibling-specific list tools by being a raw request interface.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explains when to use this tool (for any endpoint) and directs to contribute_or_report for missing endpoints, though it could more explicitly state when to prefer sibling tools over this raw request.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mjmirza/hetzner-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server