Skip to main content
Glama
sanjaypsachdev

OpenShift MCP Server

oc_expose

Expose OpenShift services or deployments as secure routes with SSL/TLS termination, supporting edge, passthrough, and reencrypt options.

Instructions

Expose an OpenShift resource (service, deployment, etc.) with secure route endpoints supporting SSL/TLS termination

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoPath to TLS private key file
nameYesName of the resource to expose
pathNoPath for the route (e.g., /api)
portNoTarget port to expose (port name or number)
dryRunNoShow what would be created without actually creating it
labelsNoLabels to apply to the route in KEY=VALUE format
weightNoWeight for this route (0-256)
contextNoOpenShift context to use (optional)
hostnameNoCustom hostname for the route
namespaceNoOpenShift namespace/projectdefault
routeNameNoName for the route (if not specified, derives from resource name)
routeTypeNoType of secure route: edge (SSL termination at router), passthrough (SSL passthrough), reencrypt (SSL re-encryption)edge
annotationsNoAnnotations to apply to the route in KEY=VALUE format
certificateNoPath to TLS certificate file
resourceTypeYesResource type to expose (service, deploymentconfig, deployment)
caCertificateNoPath to CA certificate file
tlsTerminationNoTLS termination type (deprecated, use routeType instead)
wildcardPolicyNoWildcard policy for the routeNone
destinationCaCertificateNoPath to destination CA certificate file (for reencrypt)
insecureEdgeTerminationPolicyNoPolicy for insecure traffic: None (reject), Allow (allow), Redirect (redirect to secure)Redirect
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states a high-level action and does not disclose side effects (e.g., creating a Route object), overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or failure modes, which are critical for a mutating Kubernetes/OpenShift tool.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and includes a useful parenthetical resource list, though it could be more detailed for a tool this complex.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 20 parameters and no output schema, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not explain prerequisites, route creation semantics, or interaction with existing routes, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning—it only mentions secure route endpoints and TLS termination, which loosely aligns with routeType/certificate params but doesn't clarify them beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Expose' and identifies the resource types (service, deployment, etc.) and key capability (secure route endpoints with SSL/TLS termination). It distinguishes from sibling tools like oc_create or oc_apply by focusing on route-based exposure, though it doesn't explicitly say 'creates a route'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The description implies usage for exposing resources with TLS termination but does not contrast with sibling tools like oc_create or oc_apply, which could also create routes.

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/sanjaypsachdev/mcp-server-openshift'

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