Skip to main content
Glama

Detach network public address

detach_network_public_address
Destructive

Detach an owned public address from its current target while retaining ownership for the paid period. Use to remove Internet connectivity from that target.

Instructions

Detach an owned public address from its current target; it stays owned for the paid period. This can remove Internet connectivity. 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
address_idYesExact lowercase UUID returned by an owned networking resource

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.16

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Far exceeds what annotations provide. Annotations only say destructive/not-readOnly/openWorld, while the description adds that the address remains owned, that Internet connectivity can be lost, required scopes (networking:read vs networking:manage) and that full/read defaults do not grant networking, backend enforcement of ownership plus service 2FA locks, the meaning of an accepted-but-pending operation, and the reason_code semantics for waiting vs failure. This is exactly the context a mutation tool needs.

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?

Purpose and the key consequence (connectivity loss) are front-loaded, and the operational runbook detail that follows is load-bearing rather than filler. It is a single dense paragraph without headings or bullets, which makes the polling and retry rules harder to scan than they should be.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return shape an agent must act on (an accepted operation/resource with in_progress and reason_code) and how to interpret it. Combined with auth requirements, idempotency-key reuse on transport failure, and the no-auto-retry rule, nothing an agent needs to complete the call correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Only one parameter (address_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, including UUID pattern and 'returned by an owned networking resource'. The description adds nothing specific about the identifier beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Detach an owned public address from its current target') and immediately clarifies the scope boundary that separates it from sibling operations: the address 'stays owned for the paid period', distinguishing it from delete_network_public_binding and from the attach_* siblings. An agent can identify the action and its effect without reading further.

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 capabilities and owned resource state first, obtain approval for the exact change) and explicit post-call procedure (poll on in_progress, wait next_check_seconds). It does not name sibling alternatives such as delete_network_public_binding or move_network_public_ip for when detachment is the wrong choice, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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