List primary IPs for Hetzner Cloud, optionally filtered by ID or query, to review or manage IP allocations. Read-only.
List primary IPs. 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 behavioral burden. 'Read only' usefully discloses that this is a non-mutating operation, but nothing is said about authentication requirements, pagination, rate limits, or result volume—significant gaps for a list tool with no annotation coverage.
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 terse sentences, front-loading the resource before the safety note; nothing is wasted. It is arguably under-specified rather than overly wordy, so it lands just short of a 5.
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?
There is no output schema, the query parameter is a nested free-form object, and the description does not explain what a 'primary IP' is, what fields are returned, or how filtering behaves. For a list tool in a large cloud/robot family, this is thin.
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%, with id, query, and verbose each documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to.
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 (primary IPs), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not differentiate itself from the numerous sibling list tools (cloud_list_floating_ips, robot_list_ips, cloud_list_servers), 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?
The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as robot_list_ips or cloud_list_floating_ips. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.