Skip to main content
Glama
bacarrdy

VPSnet

by bacarrdy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Set network default security policy

set_network_default_security_policy
DestructiveIdempotent

Set the default accept or deny policy for servers in a network that lack custom groups, while explicit custom groups remain restrictive.

Instructions

Change accept/deny for servers without custom groups. Explicit custom groups remain restrictive. Use policy generation and default-group revision from get_network_security_policy. Poll get_network_security_policy for each affected network (policies[].network_id); these receipts are not generic network operation IDs. 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
network_idYesExact lowercase UUID returned by an owned networking resource
project_idYesExact lowercase UUID returned by an owned networking resource
default_policyYes
idempotencyKeyYesIdempotency-Key for this exact change; preserve it and the unchanged body on uncertain recovery
expected_generationYes
expected_default_revisionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.16

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations (destructive/openWorld/idempotent): explicit networking:manage vs networking:read permission requirements, backend ownership/feature/2FA enforcement, async 'accepted is pending, not proof of connectivity' semantics, the in_progress/reason_code polling contract, and idempotency-key reuse with no auto-retry.

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?

Front-loads the scoping rule and permission requirements, and most sentences carry operational weight for an async mutation. It is long and the two separate 'Poll ...' instructions risk reading as redundant, but nothing is filler.

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 carries the full return/state burden and does so: it explains the per-network receipt lookup, the in_progress/next_check_seconds loop, and how to interpret reason_kind waiting vs failure. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates by tying expected_generation and expected_default_revision to 'policy generation and default-group revision from get_network_security_policy' and by explaining idempotencyKey preservation. It adds meaning beyond the raw schema for the two undocumented integer params.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Change accept/deny') and precisely scopes it to 'servers without custom groups' while noting explicit custom groups stay restrictive. That scope rule is genuinely clarifying, but it never distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings like update_network_security_group or retire_network_security_policy.

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 real preconditions: 'Read current capabilities and owned resource state first; obtain approval for the exact change' and directs the caller to get_network_security_policy for the generation/revision inputs. Clear usage context, though it never states when to prefer a sibling tool instead.

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