Creates a new Contabo private network in your account, letting you specify a name and optional region or description for network isolation and resource grouping.
Create a new Private Network [POST /v1/private-networks] Create a new Private Network in your account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body | |
| x-trace-id | No | Identifier to trace group of requests. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens on duplicate names, whether creation is asynchronous, what permissions are required, or what identifier is returned.
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?
Two sentences that restate the same fact: the title line ('Create a new Private Network') is repeated verbatim as the body sentence. Short and front-loaded, but redundant rather than efficient.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description never indicates what a successful call returns (e.g. the new network's ID or region) or whether the operation is immediate. For a creation tool with a nested request body and no output contract, the description leaves a real gap.
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 100%, including the nested body fields (name, region with an EU default, description), so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning whatsoever, so it cannot exceed the baseline.
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 names a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Private Network') and even cites the REST endpoint POST /v1/private-networks, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like retrieve_private_network or patch_private_network. It stops short of explicitly differentiating scope from other create_* tools, but the resource noun does that work implicitly.
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?
It never says when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. versus create_firewall or patch_private_network), nor does it state prerequisites such as required account permissions or quotas. The only usage context is 'in your account', which is not real guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.