OCI MCP Server

create_bucket

Create an OCI bucket in a specified compartment with a given name and optional public access type (NoPublicAccess, ObjectRead, or ObjectReadWithoutList).

Instructions

Create a bucket. public_access_type: NoPublicAccess|ObjectRead|ObjectReadWithoutList.

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": {
      "compartment_id": "<compartment_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_bucket"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`compartment_id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`namespace`	No
`public_access_type`	No	NoPublicAccess

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?

The description only states the action and lists one parameter's values. With no annotations provided, it should disclose behavioral traits like success/failure conditions, asynchronicity, authentication needs, and side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior). It fails to do so.

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 very concise with two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Create'. However, it might be too minimal, missing opportunities to add context without becoming verbose.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It explains only one parameter and the basic action, omitting explanations for required fields like compartment_id and name, and providing no information about return values or side effects. A creation tool should provide more context.

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 for the public_access_type parameter by listing its valid values, which is not present in the schema (no enum). However, it does not explain the other three parameters (compartment_id, name, namespace), leaving them with no context despite 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Create a bucket', which is a verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_bucket and list_buckets. However, it lacks context about what type of bucket (e.g., cloud storage) and could be more specific about the resource.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to choose create_bucket over other create tools, or when deletion or listing is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server