List placement groups for Hetzner Cloud, optionally filtered by ID, name, or label, to inspect server distribution. Read-only.
List placement groups. 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read only' is the only trait disclosed; it says nothing about pagination, result limits, permissions, or what happens when the optional id is omitted versus supplied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, the purpose front-loaded before the read-only note. Nothing is padded, though the brevity tips into under-specification rather than tightness.
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?
Three parameters including a nested free-form filter object and no output schema. The description does not explain the filter key semantics, whether results are paginated, or what the default (non-verbose) payload looks like, leaving real gaps for a filtered-list tool.
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 id, query, and verbose are already documented in the schema, including the nested filter object. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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 (List) and resource (placement groups), which is enough to separate it from the create/delete placement-group siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many other cloud_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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Read only' signals the operation class but gives no guidance on when to call this versus cloud_create_placement_group/cloud_delete_placement_group, or on filtering strategy. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.