List all resources attached to a Hetzner private network by passing the network ID; read-only lookups support filters and optional verbose output.
List everything attached to a private network. Pass the network id. 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.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does declare the safety profile with 'Read only', which is genuinely useful, but it omits pagination behavior, result shape, and what 'everything' encompasses (subnets, IPs, members).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the parameter hint and the safety note. Nothing needs to be cut.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more work, particularly for the nested query object and what a member record contains. It is minimally adequate for a read-only list tool but leaves real gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the three parameters is already documented in the schema. The description restates the id usage but adds no meaning about the nested 'query' filters or the 'verbose' payload option. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('List everything attached to a private network'), which distinguishes it from sibling cloud_list_networks (which lists the networks themselves). It doesn't explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
'Pass the network id' is an invocation instruction, not guidance about when this tool is appropriate. There is no mention of when-not to use it or which alternative (e.g., cloud_list_networks) to prefer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.