Fetch a specific Contabo private network by ID to view its attributes and configuration for your account.
Get specific Private Network by id [GET /v1/private-networks/{privateNetworkId}] Get attributes values to a specific Private Network on your account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only a generic retrieval statement and vague return information ('attributes values'), with no auth, rate-limit, or response-shape detail beyond structured fields.
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 short sentences are front-loaded with the core operation, and the endpoint path is compact. The second sentence is slightly redundant but does not materially waste space.
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?
For a simple read-by-id tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety behavior, the description is mostly complete. Since there is no output schema, it could more clearly describe return attributes, but the essential invocation context is present.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that lookup is by id but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Private Network by id'), and the GET endpoint confirms the operation. It distinguishes itself from list/create/update/delete siblings by being explicitly id-specific.
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 phrase 'by id' implies the tool is used when a privateNetworkId is known, but the description does not name retrieve_private_network_list as the alternative or state when not to use this tool. Guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.