retrievePrivateNetworkListList Private Networks - List and filter all Private Networks in your account
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| dataCenter | No | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| instanceIds | No | ||
| x-request-id | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the account scope ('in your account') beyond that. It does not disclose pagination behavior, response formatting, or any other operational details, but given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate for minimal added context.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it repeats the tool title 'List Private Networks' verbatim, which wastes a few words. Despite this redundancy, it remains concise and easy to parse.
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?
The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description gives only a one-line overview. It lacks information about response structure, pagination, filtering semantics, or typical use cases. The description is insufficient for such a parameter-rich list operation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions that filtering is possible, but provides no meaning for parameters like name, region, dataCenter, instanceIds, page, size, or orderBy. The agent gets no help in understanding how to construct a valid request beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool 'List and filter all Private Networks in your account' with a specific verb ('List and filter') and resource ('Private Networks'), making its purpose unambiguous. It inherently distinguishes itself from the singular retrievePrivateNetwork sibling by listing multiple resources.
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?
The description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusion criteria. It doesn't mention that this tool is for listing multiple networks vs. the singular retrievePrivateNetwork, nor does it suggest any specific scenarios. The usage is implied only by the verb 'List', which is insufficient.
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.