Updates an existing private network by ID, letting you change its name or description in your Contabo account.
Update a Private Network by id [PATCH /v1/private-networks/{privateNetworkId}] Update a Private Network by id in your account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body | |
| x-trace-id | No | Identifier to trace group of requests. | |
| privateNetworkId | Yes | The identifier of the Private Network |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds only the HTTP method (PATCH) and endpoint, but does not explain partial-update behavior, required permissions, effects of omitted fields, or any other behavioral context beyond what the annotations and schema already cover.
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 short and front-loads the verb, but the second sentence ('Update a Private Network by id in your account') is essentially redundant with the first and adds no new information. The endpoint notation is useful, but the repetition reduces efficiency.
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 rich schema, annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate for invocation. However, it does not state whether this is a full or partial update, what fields can be changed, or any operational constraints, leaving gaps that a mutation tool description could reasonably fill.
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%, so the schema itself documents the privateNetworkId, body fields, and x-trace-id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Update a Private Network by id', plus the PATCH endpoint. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like create_private_network or retrieve_private_network, but the update action is clear.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implied usage is that an existing Private Network is being updated, which is already obvious from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.