Skip to main content
Glama
bacarrdy

VPSnet

by bacarrdy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Renew VPN period

renew_vpn_period

Renew a VPN's next monthly period by paying its approved quote from account balance using the exact quote and original key after user approval.

Instructions

Pay the VPN's approved next-month renewal from account balance using the exact quote and original key. 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. Requires full API access, networking:manage, enabled paid operations, networking:order and spend caps. Choose a supported live catalog tier and its documented request kind; preserve the exact quote; disclose its gross_amount in EUR before user approval. The same Idempotency-Key is required for quote and confirmation. API-key checkout supports the advertised account-balance payment method only. Payment acceptance is not resource readiness.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quote_idYesExact lowercase UUID returned by an owned networking resource
gateway_idYesExact lowercase UUID returned by an owned networking resource
quoteTokenYesExact quote_token returned by the quote; sent only as X-Quote-Token
idempotencyKeyYesStable Idempotency-Key for this exact intent; reuse unchanged on recovery, never generate a new key for an uncertain result
acknowledge_chargeYesSet only after the user approves the exact quoted EUR total and intended purchase/renewal

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.16

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: backend-enforced ownership/feature/2FA locks, spend caps, pending-vs-connectivity semantics, the in_progress/reason_code polling contract with next_check_seconds, and safe handling of transport uncertainty. This far exceeds what the annotations convey and is consistent with them (idempotent=false aligns with 'never automatically retry').

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose is correctly front-loaded, but the body is dense and repeats the in_progress/reason_code waiting concept across several sentences. It is information-rich rather than padded, yet a tighter edit could preserve the semantics with less bulk.

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?

For a no-output-schema, 5-required-param mutation tool, the definition covers exactly what an agent needs: approval gating, idempotency discipline, polling semantics, permission requirements, and what 'accepted' does and does not mean. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so per-field documentation is already handled, but the description adds interaction meaning: quoteToken must be preserved exactly, the same Idempotency-Key must span quote and confirmation, acknowledge_charge is gated on disclosing gross_amount in EUR and user approval, and the request must be unchanged on recovery.

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+mechanism: 'Pay the VPN's approved next-month renewal from account balance using the exact quote and original key.' An agent can distinguish this from quote_vpn_period_renewal, renew_network_product, and order_network_product 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 strong workflow context: read capabilities/owned state first, obtain approval for the exact change, execute only against an approved quote, and never auto-retry. It does not explicitly name the sibling that produces the quote or token, so the routing to alternatives is implied rather than stated.

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