OCI MCP Server

add_default_route

Append a default route to an OCI route table by specifying a gateway. Direct traffic from a CIDR (default 0.0.0.0/0) to the gateway.

Instructions

Append a route (cidr -> gateway/IGW/NAT/Service GW) to a route table.

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": {
      "route_table_id": "<route_table_id>",
      "gateway_id": "<gateway_id>"
    },
    "name": "add_default_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`route_table_id`	Yes
`gateway_id`	Yes
`cidr`	No	0.0.0.0/0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action 'append a route', but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements. The default CIDR hints at a common use case, but that's implicit.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any waste. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too brief. It does not cover prerequisites, error handling, return values, or idempotency, which are important for a networking tool that modifies state.

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 description adds meaning to `gateway_id` by listing possible types (IGW, NAT, Service GW) and specifies the default for `cidr`. However, `route_table_id` is not explained, and the schema itself has no descriptions (0% coverage), making the partial explanation valuable but incomplete.

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 verb 'append' and the resource 'route to a route table', specifying the mapping from CIDR to gateway. It implies a default route via the default CIDR value. However, it could be more explicit that it adds a default 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or on prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and parameters.

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

Deploy Server