mcp-oci

List all resources in a compartment

list_compartment_resources

Read-onlyIdempotent

Enumerate all resources in an Oracle Cloud Infrastructure compartment using Resource Search, based on the compartment OCID.

Instructions

Enumerate every resource in a compartment (via Resource Search).

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": {
      "compartmentId": "<compartmentId>"
    },
    "name": "list_compartment_resources"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`compartmentId`	Yes	Compartment OCID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.4Sep 13, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv0.1.0Aug 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's only additional behavioral signal is the parenthetical '(via Resource Search)', which hints at the backing mechanism but says nothing about cost, latency, pagination, or eventual-consistency behavior that this aggregated query would plausibly have.

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?

One short sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing parenthetical is doing very little work.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to invoke it. Minor gaps remain around scope (all resource types?) and result limits, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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?

There is a single parameter (compartmentId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it as a Compartment OCID. The description adds no format or scope detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb (enumerate) and resource (every resource in a compartment), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_resources, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus search_resources or list_compartments, and no conditions or exclusions. The implied usage ('to see everything in a compartment') must be inferred entirely by the agent.

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

Deploy Server