Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
portkey-admin-mcp

portkey-admin-mcp

by CodesWhat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

create_egress_allowlist_entry

Add a trusted hostname, IP literal, or wildcard to the organization’s egress allowlist, permitting outbound traffic to that destination while rejecting metadata and duplicate entries.

Instructions

Trust a custom hostname, IP literal, or wildcard for organisation egress, widening permitted outbound destinations. Use list_egress_allowlist to inspect existing trust first. Portkey rejects metadata destinations and duplicates. Returns the new UUID and normalized domain; requires organisation permission.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "create_egress_allowlist_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesExact hostname, IPv4/IPv6 literal (optionally bracketed), or *. wildcard. No scheme, path, credentials, or port. Portkey trims/lowercases it and rejects cloud-metadata destinations
descriptionNoOptional description (up to 500 characters); null clears it

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the tool call succeeded and returned structured data
dataNoStructured success payload when ok is true
errorNoStructured error payload when ok is false

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.9
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Addedv1.0.8

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds material context beyond them: the entry widens outbound egress (a security-sensitive mutation), duplicates and metadata destinations are rejected, organisation permission is required, and the entry is normalized. Return-shape detail overlaps the existing output schema, which slightly weakens the added value.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is being created and its effect, followed by the precondition, the failure modes, and the output. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation with a rich schema, full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent still needs: the security implication, the prerequisite lookup, permission requirement, and rejection rules. Nothing material is missing.

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% and the domain parameter description already covers trimming/lowercasing and metadata rejection, so the description adds essentially nothing new on parameters. Duplicate rejection is a useful extra behavioral note but not a parameter-level clarification. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (trust/create an entry) and resource (organisation egress allowlist) plus the accepted value shapes (hostname, IP literal, wildcard) and the effect of widening outbound destinations. It is unmistakably distinct from get_/update_/delete_egress_allowlist_entry and list_egress_allowlist.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_egress_allowlist to check existing trust first, which is the main precondition for this create. It doesn't state when not to use it (e.g. when a broader wildcard should be avoided or when an update is preferable), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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