List Hetzner cloud servers or fetch one by ID. Filter by name or label selector, optionally returning full payloads; read-only.
List cloud servers. 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 a useful safety signal, but there is no mention of pagination, result limits, authentication needs, or the shape/size of the returned payload, which matters for a list endpoint.
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 fragments, front-loaded with the core action. Very efficient, though 'Read only' is nearly redundant phrasing that could have carried more useful detail instead.
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?
For a list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain result format, filtering behavior via the query object, and pagination. None of that is present, leaving the agent under-informed despite full schema coverage.
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 the schema already documents id, query, and verbose. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, 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 and resource ('List cloud servers'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling list tools (cloud_list_volumes, cloud_list_networks, etc.) beyond the resource noun.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as robot_list_servers or the other cloud_list_* tools, and no prerequisites or filtering conditions are stated. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.