Retrieve full pricing for Hetzner Cloud in your account currency, with optional filters by ID, query, or verbose output. Read-only access helps check costs before provisioning.
Get full pricing for the account currency. Read only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Fetch one by id. | |
| query | No | Filters, e.g. name, label_selector. | |
| verbose | No | Full payload. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional resource id to fetch a single item."New value: +"Fetch one by id."Input schema / properties / query / additionalProperties / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "boolean"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / query / additionalProperties / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number",
+ "boolean"
+]Input schema / properties / query / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional query parameters such as name or label_selector."New value: +"Filters, e.g. name, label_selector."Input schema / properties / verbose / descriptionPrevious value: -"Return full payload instead of the compact view."New value: +"Full payload."v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read only' is a useful safety signal, but it says nothing about whether pricing is cached or live, whether it requires any permission scope, or how large the payload is even when verbose is off.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two very short sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, so it loses a point only for the near-redundant 'Read only' tail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A three-parameter tool with a nested query object, no output schema, and no annotations should explain more: what the return shape roughly is, how 'full' interacts with verbose, and whether the id lookup returns a single price. The description leaves an agent with meaningful unknowns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (id, query, verbose are each documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, but there is no gap it needs to fill.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get full pricing') plus a scope qualifier ('for the account currency'), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not distinguish itself from any sibling, but no sibling in the list covers pricing, so differentiation is largely moot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether an account/currency must be configured first). The scope phrase 'account currency' implies context but stops short of stating usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.