Skip to main content
Glama
bacarrdy

VPSnet

by bacarrdy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Set network routed egress

set_network_routed_egress
Destructive

Change an owned network's routed Internet egress to none or dedicated single NAT, optionally attaching an existing public address; confirm capabilities first.

Instructions

Request the currently supported NAT transition for an owned network; the backend may refuse mode changes. This can replace the network's Internet route. public_address_id attaches an already-owned paid address and may remove it from a server. This never purchases an address. 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
internet_accessYes
public_address_idNoExact lowercase UUID returned by an owned networking resource
expected_generationYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.16

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the backend may refuse, the Internet route can be replaced, public_address_id may remove an address from a server, it never purchases an address, ownership/feature/2FA-lock enforcement, and detailed async polling and reason_code semantics.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded before the operational detail, and nearly every sentence carries weight for a destructive async operation with no output schema. The dense semicolon-chained polling/error block makes it harder to scan than ideal, but it is not padded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive mutation with no output schema and half the parameters undocumented, the description supplies permissions, effect scope, async polling behavior, success-vs-pending distinction, and retry guidance. It stops short of stating reversibility/rollback behavior or the exact response shape.

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?

Schema coverage is 50% and the description meaningfully elaborates public_address_id (attaches an owned paid address, may detach it, never purchases one). However internet_access's enum values (none/dedicated_single) and expected_generation (optimistic-concurrency token) are left unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (request a NAT transition on an owned network, replacing the Internet route) and clarifies the public_address_id side effect. It is fairly specific but somewhat winding and never names the sibling tools (get_network_routed_egress, set_network_vpn_peer_egress) that an agent should distinguish it from.

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?

Explicit prerequisites are given: read capabilities/owned resource state first, obtain approval for the exact change, and networking:read vs networking:manage is required (full/read defaults do not grant it). No exclusions or named alternatives are provided, so it falls short of a 5.

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