OpenCollective MCP Server

hetzner_get_invoice_pdf

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a Hetzner invoice as a base64-encoded PDF for automated bookkeeping and reconciliation.

Instructions

Download a Hetzner invoice as PDF.

Returns the PDF content as base64-encoded string. Requires HETZNER_ACCOUNT_EMAIL and HETZNER_ACCOUNT_PASSWORD to be set.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "hetzner_get_invoice_pdf"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ctx`	No
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the return format (base64 PDF) and credential requirements, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentences with no fluff: purpose, return format, prerequisites. Front-loaded and efficient. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, return format, and prerequisites. It lacks error or limitation details but is sufficient for a straightforward tool.

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 input schema already describes the invoice_id parameter. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter, so score at baseline 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool downloads a Hetzner invoice as PDF, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like hetzner_get_invoice (likely metadata) and hetzner_parse_invoice_pdf (parsing) by focusing on PDF download.

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 description implies usage when a PDF is needed, but provides no explicit comparison to alternatives or when not to use. It mentions prerequisites (credentials) but lacks guidance on context or exclusion.

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