List single IP addresses from Hetzner Robot, optionally filter by name or label, or fetch one by ID. Read-only.
List single 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does state the most decision-relevant trait for an agent: that this is a read-only operation with no side effects. It omits everything else, though – pagination behavior, whether results are truncated, and any filter-time constraints are unstated.
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 fragments with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the read-only note. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than the only possible concision.
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?
This is a simple list tool with a fully documented schema, so not much prose is required. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least indicate what a listed IP contains or how results are bounded, and it does not.
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 all three parameters (id, query, verbose) and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond that, and notably never mentions the single-record fetch path implied by the id parameter.
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?
"List single IPs" names a verb and a resource, so the purpose is not a tautology. However, the term "single IPs" is jargon that does not clearly distinguish this tool from sibling listings such as robot_list_failover, cloud_list_primary_ips, or cloud_list_floating_ips, leaving the agent to infer the scope.
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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives despite a large sibling set of IP- and network-listing tools. "Read only" is a safety note, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.