OpenCollective MCP Server

hetzner_list_invoices

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch paginated invoices from Hetzner Cloud for automated bookkeeping. Uses browser automation to log in and retrieve invoice data.

Instructions

List invoices from Hetzner Cloud.

Returns paginated invoice data. Requires HETZNER_ACCOUNT_EMAIL and HETZNER_ACCOUNT_PASSWORD to be set. Uses browser automation to fetch invoices from accounts.hetzner.com.

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_list_invoices"
  }
}

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare read-only and idempotent hints. The description adds that it uses browser automation, a behavioral trait not in annotations, and returns paginated data. This enriches understanding beyond structured fields.

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 efficiently convey purpose, output type, and requirements without extraneous information. Structured front-loaded with main action first.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple list tool with annotations and output schema present, the description provides necessary context: what it does, prerequisites, automation method, and pagination. No gaps identified.

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?

Input schema already describes both parameters (page, per_page) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional semantic information about parameters, so baseline score is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists invoices from Hetzner Cloud, distinguishing it from sibling tools like hetzner_get_invoice. The description is specific about the resource (invoices) and action (list).

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?

Specifies required environment variables (HETZNER_ACCOUNT_EMAIL and HETZNER_ACCOUNT_PASSWORD) and mentions browser automation, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly guide against misuse or compare with sibling tools.

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