Skip to main content
Glama
gensecaihq

pfSense MCP Server

by gensecaihq

create_certificate

Create a certificate on pfSense by generating a new RSA or ECDSA key pair internally or importing an existing PEM certificate and private key.

Instructions

Create or import a certificate on pfSense

Import and internal generation use different API endpoints with different required fields, so this routes on method.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prvNoPEM-encoded private key (required for import)
certNoPEM-encoded certificate data (required for import)
typeNoCertificate type — "server", "user", etc.
carefNoReference ID of the signing CA (for internal generation)
descrYesDescriptive name for the certificate
ecnameNoElliptic curve name, e.g. "prime256v1" (required for ECDSA generation)
keylenNoKey length in bits, e.g. 2048, 4096 (required for RSA generation)
methodYesCreation method — "import" to import existing, "internal" to generate internally
dn_cityNoDistinguished name — City or Locality
keytypeNoKey type — "RSA" or "ECDSA" (required for internal generation)
dn_stateNoDistinguished name — State or Province
lifetimeNoCertificate lifetime in days
digest_algNoDigest algorithm — sha256, sha384, sha512 (required for generation)
dn_countryNoDistinguished name — Country code (2 letter)
dn_commonnameNoDistinguished name — Common Name (required for generation)
dn_organizationNoDistinguished name — Organization

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a write operation. The description adds useful context about routing to different API endpoints and conditionally required fields, which is valuable, but it does not go into deeper behavior like response details or side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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, with the first sentence giving a clear, front-loaded purpose and the second providing a concise note on routing behavior. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with 16 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core routing behavior but omits guidance on choosing between this and sibling tools like generate_certificate. It also does not mention prerequisites such as an existing CA for internal generation, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 16 parameters, providing clear meaning for each field. The description adds extra context by noting that required fields differ between import and internal generation, helping to explain why certain parameters become necessary based on 'method'.

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 clearly states the action (create or import) and the resource (certificate on pfSense), specifying the object and operation. It covers both import and internal generation, which helps distinguish it from siblings like generate_certificate, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains that import and internal generation use different endpoints and required fields, and that routing depends on the 'method' parameter. This gives some context for when to use which method, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over generate_certificate or other certificate creation tools.

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