Skip to main content
Glama

Create network security group

create_network_security_group
Idempotent

Create a named allow-rule set for VPSnet security groups, scoped to a project or network, to control IPv4 ingress and egress traffic. Missing egress rules add an egress-any allow rule.

Instructions

Create a named allow-rule set. If no egress rule is supplied, the backend adds an egress-any allow rule; updates instead keep exactly the rules supplied. Optional network_id scopes it to that network; otherwise it belongs to the project. IPv6 rules are unavailable. Requires explicit networking:read for reads or networking:manage for changes; full/read defaults do not grant networking. The backend enforces ownership, feature availability and service 2FA locks. Read current capabilities and owned resource state first; obtain approval for the exact change. An accepted operation is pending, not proof of connectivity. Poll the returned operation/resource on its in_progress flag, waiting next_check_seconds between reads: while in_progress is true its reason_code is what is awaited (reason_kind waiting, e.g. a queued or pending reason, or a control plane that has not answered yet), never an error; only in_progress false with reason_kind failure is a failure. Preserve reason_code. On transport uncertainty inspect state and reuse only the original key and unchanged request; never automatically retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
rulesYes
network_idNoExact lowercase UUID returned by an owned networking resource
project_idYesExact lowercase UUID returned by an owned networking resource
idempotencyKeyYesIdempotency-Key for this exact change; preserve it and the unchanged body on uncertain recovery

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.16

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes far beyond the annotations: it discloses the implicit egress-any default rule, IPv6 unavailability, the exact auth scopes required (networking:read/networking:manage), backend-enforced ownership/feature/2FA locks, and detailed async semantics (in_progress polling, reason_code meaning, waiting vs failure). The idempotency and no-auto-retry recovery rules are also spelled out.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense and long, but front-loaded with the create semantics before moving to auth and async behavior, and no sentence is filler given the async-operation complexity. The lack of visual structure in a single block keeps it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return contract ('An accepted operation is pending, not proof of connectivity'), how to poll it, and how to interpret reasons and recover from transport uncertainty. Combined with auth and default-rule disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call and follow up correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 60%, and the description compensates by clarifying network_id scoping (network vs project), the egress-default behavior of the rules array, and the precise handling of idempotencyKey on uncertain recovery. It adds real meaning over the schema, though rule-field details (direction/protocol/ports) are left to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a named allow-rule set') and immediately distinguishes the create case from updates ('updates instead keep exactly the rules supplied'). An agent can tell this apart from update_network_security_group and clone_network_security_group without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear preconditions ('Read current capabilities and owned resource state first; obtain approval for the exact change') and contrasts create vs update semantics, plus the network_id scoping choice. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when-not to use this, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools