Skip to main content
Glama
lazyants
by lazyants

Create Network

hetzner_create_network

Create a new private network with a specified IP range, plus optional subnets and routes for Hetzner Cloud infrastructure.

Instructions

Create a new network with the specified IP range, and optionally subnets and routes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the network
labelsNoLabels as key-value pairs
routesNoArray of routes to create
subnetsNoArray of subnets to create
ip_rangeYesIP range of the whole network, e.g. "10.0.0.0/8"
expose_routes_to_vswitchNoWhether to expose routes to the vSwitch

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / expose_routes_to_vswitch
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Whether to expose routes to the vSwitch",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  2. First observedv2.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write with open-world effects. The description adds only that subnets/routes are optional, without disclosing auth requirements, rate limits, or what the creation response contains. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this modest addition is a 3.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core verb and resource come first. It is efficient, though it does not use its brevity budget to add usage or behavioral context.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 6-parameter create tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers what is built but omits when to use it versus the network mutation siblings. Annotations handle the safety profile, so the definition is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the IP range and optional subnets/routes without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Create a new network') and enumerates the created components (IP range, subnets, routes), so an agent can distinguish it from network siblings like get/update/delete. However, it does not explicitly name those alternatives to differentiate.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools such as hetzner_add_subnet or hetzner_add_route for extending an existing network. The agent must infer all routing decisions.

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