hetzner-mcp

Remove host from registry

hz_host_remove

Destructive

Removes an SSH host entry from the managed host inventory without touching the server itself; runs as a dry-run plan unless confirm=true.

Instructions

Remove a host entry. The server itself is untouched; SSH tools can no longer reach it.

Safety: dry run unless confirm=true; refused on protected resources.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "hz_host_remove"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`confirm`	No	false (default) returns a dry-run plan and changes nothing. true executes the plan.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value on top: it clarifies the blast radius (registry entry only, not the machine), the downstream effect on SSH access, and the refusal condition for protected resources. It stops short of saying whether a removed entry can be re-registered or recovered.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, effect first, safety second. No filler and nothing buried.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential decision points: what is deleted, what survives, and how to preview it. Only the exact shape of the dry-run plan and the recovery path are left unstated.

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?

The confirm parameter is fully documented in the schema itself, while name has no schema description; the description only implies it is the registry host name. With 50% coverage the description should compensate more directly, for example by stating the name must match an existing registered entry exactly.

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 and resource ("Remove a host entry") and immediately bounds the scope: the server itself is untouched, but SSH tools lose reachability. That distinguishes it from hz_host_register by implication, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The safety line implies the workflow (call first for a dry run, then again with confirm=true) and notes that protected resources are refused. It never explicitly says when to choose this over hz_host_register or hz_host_list, so the routing guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server