Skip to main content
Glama
OpenSIPS

OpenSIPS MCP Server

Official
by OpenSIPS

cfg_generate

Generate an OpenSIPS configuration from a predefined scenario template, with automatic validation and linting to ensure correctness.

Instructions

Generate an OpenSIPS configuration from a predefined scenario template.

Renders the scenario template, then — by default — runs opensips -C -f when the binary is on PATH and runs the static linter unconditionally. The Summit deck claim "Every output runs through opensips -C -f" lives here: this is the headline tool, and it owns the validate-on-render contract. If the binary is unavailable, the result includes validation: {"skipped": true, "reason": "opensips binary not found"} so the caller can decide whether to proceed.

Parameters

scenario: Name of the scenario (e.g. load_balancer, class4_sbc, registrar_class5, webrtc_gateway, residential_pbx, call_center, b2bua, sbc_with_rtpengine). params: Template parameters such as db_url, listen_ip, domain, etc. validate: When True (default), run opensips -C -f against the rendered cfg. Skipped (with a reason) if the binary is not on PATH. lint: When True (default), run cfg_lint against the rendered cfg and surface findings + suggestions. Pure Python, always available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scenarioYes
paramsNo
validateNo
lintNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: running opensips -C -f by default, unconditional linting, and the validation skipped reason. It also cites the Summit deck claim, adding context beyond mere functionality.

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 well-organized: a concise purpose statement, a behavioral paragraph, and a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description provides complete context: it explains all parameters, default behaviors, and output validation details. It is self-sufficient for correct tool invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains each parameter in detail: scenario lists examples, params describes template parameters, validate and lint state defaults and consequences. This significantly compensates for the sparse schema.

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 'Generate an OpenSIPS configuration from a predefined scenario template' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like cfg_generate_iterative and cfg_generate_m4 by focusing on single scenario generation and validation.

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?

It calls itself 'the headline tool' and explains the validate-on-render contract, implicitly indicating primary usage. It describes fallback behavior when the binary is missing, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/OpenSIPS/opensips-mcp-server'

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