timeweb-mcp-server

timeweb_create_vpc

Create a Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) with custom subnet and location to establish isolated network segments for Timeweb Cloud resources.

Instructions

Create a new Virtual Private Cloud (VPC)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "timeweb_create_vpc"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	VPC name
`format`	No	Output format: 'markdown' for human-readable or 'json' for machine-readable
`location`	No	VPC location
`subnet_v4`	No	IPv4 subnet in CIDR notation (e.g., '10.0.0.0/24'). Auto-assigned if not provided.
`description`	No	VPC description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new VPC' without mentioning potential side effects, permissions required, cost implications, idempotency, or the nature of the response. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it concise and easy to parse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or any operational context. With 5 parameters and a create operation, more detail is needed, such as the response format or prerequisites, to enable correct usage.

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%, with all five parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action 'Create' and the resource 'Virtual Private Cloud (VPC)', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_vpc, delete_vpc, and list_vpcs by specifying the creation action.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer that it is for creating VPCs. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server