Skip to main content
Glama
gensecaihq

pfSense MCP Server

by gensecaihq

create_acme_certificate

Set up a new ACME certificate in pfSense with at least one domain for validation, and optionally adjust DNS sleep, key length, and account settings.

Instructions

Create an ACME certificate entry

The pfSense API rejects a certificate with no domains ("Field a_domainlist is required"), so at least one domain/SAN validation entry must be provided at creation time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesCertificate name
descrNoOptional description
dnssleepNoSeconds to sleep after publishing the DNS-01 record instead of acme.sh auto-detecting propagation. Without this, acme.sh polls public DNS-over-HTTPS resolvers (cloudflare-dns.com, dns.google, etc.) to check propagation — on networks that block outbound DoH (common DNS-hardening setups), that check can never succeed and the issuance hangs indefinitely with no error. Set this (e.g. 60-120) to skip the check and just wait a fixed time before validation.
keylengthNoKey length/type (e.g., '2048', '4096', 'ec-256', 'ec-384')
acmeaccountNoACME account key reference name (from search_acme_account_keys)
a_domainlistYesList of domain (SAN) validation entries. Each dict needs: - name: fully-qualified domain name for this SAN - method: validation method, e.g. 'dns_cf' for Cloudflare DNS-01, 'http' for an HTTP-01 challenge, 'webroot', etc. — see the pfSense ACME package for the full provider list. - method-specific credential/config fields, e.g. for method='dns_cf': either {"cf_token": "..."} (scoped API token) or {"cf_email": "...", "cf_key": "..."} (legacy global key). Example: [{"name": "app.example.com", "method": "dns_cf", "cf_token": "..."}] To add/remove a single domain later without resending this whole list, use manage_acme_certificate_domain.
apply_immediatelyNoWhether to apply changes immediately

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds one behavioral trait: the pfSense API rejects a certificate with no domains, so at least one domain/SAN must be provided. This is useful context beyond the annotations, but it is minimal. The description does not disclose other potential side effects (e.g., whether it triggers any background process) or required permissions.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, the second provides a critical caveat about the domain requirement. No unnecessary words or repetition. Ideal conciseness.

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?

The tool has a rich input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema, so the description need not explain parameters or return values. The description adequately covers the most important non-schema context (API rejection of empty domain list). However, it could be slightly more complete by clarifying that this creates only an ACME certificate entry and that actual issuance is handled by a separate tool (issue_acme_certificate).

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?

The input schema provides comprehensive descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), including detailed guidance on a_domainlist formatting and dnssleep behavior. The description itself adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating that a_domainlist is required. Per the rubric, with full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Create an ACME certificate entry') with a specific resource (ACME certificate). The verb 'create' distinguishes it from sibling tools like update, delete, issue, and renew. No ambiguity about the tool's primary function.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this creates only an entry and that issuance/renewal are separate steps (issue_acme_certificate, renew_acme_certificate). The note about the domain requirement is a constraint, not usage guidance. This is a clear gap.

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/gensecaihq/pfsense-mcp-server'

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