OpenCollective MCP Server

hetzner_parse_invoice_pdf

Read-onlyIdempotent

Download and parse a Hetzner invoice PDF into JSON, extracting details such as invoice number, date, amount, net, and VAT. Requires Hetzner account credentials.

Instructions

Download and parse a Hetzner invoice PDF to JSON.

Extracts invoice data like invoice number, date, amount, net, VAT, etc. 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_parse_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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the constraint that credentials must be set, which is a behavioral requirement not captured in annotations. No other behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, performance) are disclosed.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences: first covers the main purpose, second adds extracted fields and prerequisites. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the simple parameter set, annotations covering safety, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It states the input needed (invoice_id and env vars) and the output (parsed JSON with specific fields). No gaps are apparent.

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 provides a clear description for the required 'invoice_id' parameter. The tool description does not add any further meaning or usage guidance for the parameter, so baseline score of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 and parses a Hetzner invoice PDF to JSON, specifying the verb action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hetzner_get_invoice_pdf which likely returns raw PDF, and provides the output format.

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 mentions required environment variables (HETZNER_ACCOUNT_EMAIL and HETZNER_ACCOUNT_PASSWORD), which is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like hetzner_get_invoice_details or hetzner_get_invoice, missing direct usage context.

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