Skip to main content
Glama
GoCoder7

OCI MCP Server

by GoCoder7
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool 'oci-manage' has a clear, distinct purpose covering multiple OCI resource types.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'oci-manage' follows a clear pattern (prefix_verb) that would be consistent if more tools existed.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool for managing compute, storage, networking, databases, and monitoring in Oracle Cloud Infrastructure is too few for the apparent broad scope. This forces all operations through one interface, which is insufficient for proper agent interaction with such a complex domain.

    Completeness1/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for the stated purpose. A single 'manage' tool cannot provide the necessary CRUD/lifecycle operations for compute instances, storage volumes, network configurations, databases, and monitoring—this will cause significant agent failures due to missing specific actions.

  • Average 2.6/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'manage' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or error handling. The broad scope suggests complex operations, but no specifics are given, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

    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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. It's appropriately sized for a high-level tool, though it could be more structured (e.g., breaking down 'manage'). No wasted words, but it's brief given the tool's complexity.

    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 the tool's high complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, output expectations, or error handling. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use.

    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 the schema documents all parameters well. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it lists service categories but doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description states the tool manages OCI resources across multiple service categories, which provides a general purpose. However, it's vague about the specific verb ('manage' is broad) and doesn't distinguish from siblings (though none exist, it still lacks specificity). It lists resource types but doesn't clarify what 'manage' entails beyond the schema's action enum.

    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?

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for OCI resource management but offers no context on prerequisites, limitations, or typical scenarios. With no siblings, this is less critical, but still lacks any usage context.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

oci-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

oci-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/GoCoder7/oci-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server