createPrivateNetworkCreate a new Private Network - Create a new Private Network in your account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes | ||
| createPrivateNetworkBody | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / x-hapi-auth-stateRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate a non-read-only, potentially destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'in your account', omitting details about side effects, prerequisites, invocation patterns, or regional requirements that would be useful beyond the structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is repetitive, saying essentially the same thing twice: 'Create a new Private Network - Create a new Private Network in your account.' It could be condensed to a single non-redundant sentence, so it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (nested body object, required headers) and the lack of output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It provides no information about request/response behavior, required fields, regional defaults, or potential side effects, making it insufficient for reliable invocation without additional investigation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, and the tool description does not mention any parameter names, types, or requirements. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameters like x-request-id, name, region, and description entirely unexplained outside the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'Private Network', making the primary purpose clear. However, it is largely a restatement of the tool name and title, and it does not distinguish from sibling tools like patchPrivateNetwork or deletePrivateNetwork.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as patchPrivateNetwork or assignInstancePrivateNetwork. The description provides no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have clearly distinct CRUD roles per resource, but there are several confusing overlaps: start/stop/restart/shutdown/rescue are similar lifecycle actions, and there are duplicate audit tools like retrieveImageAuditsList and retrieveImageAuditsList1 (one even mislabeled as DNS Zones audit). Additionally, retrieveTagAuditsList appears to duplicate retrieveAssignmentsAuditsList, and updateDnsZoneRecord incorrectly says 'Create resource record'. These overlaps and mislabeled descriptions make it hard to pick the right tool.
The naming is a mix of camelCase verb_noun patterns, but inconsistent. Some tools use 'retrieveXList' while others use 'listX', some use 'Cancel' with a capital letter, and 'tool_search' uses snake_case. Numeric suffixes like 'retrieveImageAuditsList1' and verbs like 'patchInstance' instead of 'updateInstance' further break consistency.
With 124 tools, this is an extremely large tool surface for an MCP server. Even for a broad cloud provider API, this overwhelms an agent's context and selection capabilities. The number far exceeds reasonable scoping and creates unnecessary selection overhead.
The tool set covers a wide range of resources thoroughly: instances, snapshots, images, private networks, object storage, DNS, domains, tags, roles, users, secrets, and audits. Most resources have create/retrieve/update/delete lifecycle operations, and there are extensive audit history tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit instance deletion besides cancel, no separate firewall management beyond upgradeInstance), but overall the surface is quite complete for its domain.