Skip to main content
Glama
mjmirza

hetzner-mcp

by mjmirza
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

robot raw request

robot_request

Call Hetzner Robot dedicated server API endpoints directly via relative paths; reads are free, writes follow read-only and cost safeguards.

Instructions

Call any Hetzner Robot dedicated servers (robot-ws.your-server.de) endpoint directly. Use a relative path like /servers. Reads are free. Writes obey the read-only and cost guards. If an endpoint you need is missing or misbehaving, use the contribute_or_report tool to open a prefilled issue or pull request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoRequest body for write methods, as a JSON object, for example {"name":"web1","type":"spread"}. A JSON string is also accepted and parsed.
pathYesRelative API path, for example /servers or /servers/123.
queryNoQuery string parameters.
methodNoHTTP method. Defaults to GET.
confirmNoMust be true to create a billed resource. Reads and free resources do not need it.
verboseNoReturn the full payload. Default false returns a compact, token-efficient view.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.7.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / query / additionalProperties / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / additionalProperties / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number",
+  "boolean"
+]
  2. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the schema: reads are free and writes are subject to read-only/cost guards. It stops short of describing auth requirements, rate limits, or what the guards actually do when they trigger.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the path convention, guard behavior, and the escalation route. Little waste, though the contribute_or_report sentence is somewhat tangential to invoking the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a generic request tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, path convention, guard behavior, and a fallback route. Return shape is handled by the verbose param in the schema, so this is largely complete despite the absence of auth/rate-limit detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters (path, body, query, method, confirm, verbose) are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only restates the relative-path convention for path and adds no param detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Call) and resource (any Hetzner Robot endpoint at robot-ws.your-server.de), and gives the relative-path convention. It is clearly the generic escape hatch versus the specific robot_list_* and cloud_* siblings, though it never names a sibling to explicitly differentiate from.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It conveys useful context ('Reads are free', 'Writes obey the read-only and cost guards') and routes the missing-endpoint case to contribute_or_report. However, it never says when to prefer a dedicated sibling (e.g. robot_list_servers) over this generic tool, leaving that inference to the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools