Skip to main content
Glama
OpenSIPS

OpenSIPS MCP Server

Official
by OpenSIPS

observability_generate_bundle

Generate a complete observability deployment bundle from an OpenSIPS scenario, including a Prometheus scrape configuration, Grafana dashboards, and a docker-compose stack, with auto-injected Prometheus module for immediate monitoring.

Instructions

Build a full deployment bundle from a scenario.

The bundle pairs the cfg generator output with everything you need to actually observe the deployment::

opensips.cfg                            # rendered + prometheus.so injected
monitoring/
  prometheus.yml                        # scrape config
  docker-compose.monitoring.yml         # Prometheus + Grafana stack
  grafana/
    provisioning/
      datasources/datasource.yml
      dashboards/dashboard.yml
    dashboards/<deployment>-*.json      # one per triggered category
README.md

Categories are picked from the cfg's loadmodule set, so the dashboards never drift from the modules actually loaded.

Parameters

scenario: A scenario name (see cfg_list_scenarios). params: Scenario parameters (same as cfg_generate). deployment_name: Slug used in titles, filenames, and Prometheus labels. Defaults to the scenario name. inject_prometheus: Add prometheus.so + httpd.so to the cfg if absent. Default True. Set False if you want to wire the exporter yourself. prom_port: Port the OpenSIPS httpd module listens on. Default 8888. grafana_port: External port to publish Grafana on. Default 3000. opensips_host: Hostname Prometheus scrapes. Default "opensips" to match the docker network alias used by the project's ecosystem stack.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scenarioYes
paramsNo
deployment_nameNo
inject_prometheusNo
prom_portNo
grafana_portNo
opensips_hostNoopensips

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that by default inject_prometheus adds prometheus.so and httpd.so to the cfg, and provides defaults for ports and host. It does not discuss file overwrite behavior or idempotency, but covers key behavioral changes sufficiently.

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 well-structured with a summary, output structure code block, a note on category selection, and parameter list. It is informative without being overly verbose, though could be slightly more concise.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, output schema present), the description adequately covers the bundle contents, default behaviors, and parameter meanings. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites beyond having a scenario, but is largely complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with a detailed parameter section, explaining each parameter's purpose, default values, and usage context (e.g., 'inject_prometheus: Add prometheus.so + httpd.so to the cfg if absent. Default True. Set False if you want to wire the exporter yourself.').

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?

Description clearly states 'Build a full deployment bundle from a scenario.' It details the output structure (opensips.cfg, monitoring/ with docker-compose, dashboards, README) and distinguishes from siblings like observability_generate_dashboards by being the comprehensive bundle that combines cfg generation with monitoring setup.

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?

The description implies it's used when you need a full deployment bundle, and contrasts with sibling tools by being all-encompassing. However, it does not explicitly provide when-not or list alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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