OCI MCP Server

create_internet_gateway

Creates an internet gateway for a Virtual Cloud Network (VCN) in Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, enabling communication between the VCN and the internet.

Instructions

Create an internet gateway.

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>",
      "vcn_id": "<vcn_id>",
      "display_name": "<display_name>"
    },
    "name": "create_internet_gateway"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`compartment_id`	Yes
`vcn_id`	Yes
`display_name`	Yes
`is_enabled`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the creation action, omitting details about permissions, idempotency, side effects, or resource lifecycle, which are critical for an agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short (one sentence) but under-specified for the tool's complexity. It is not appropriately sized, as it lacks essential context to guide a correct invocation.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 4 parameters, no outputs, and many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's role in the broader system, parameter roles, or behavioral expectations, making it nearly useless for an agent.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its 4 parameters, and the description adds no parameter information. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the agent without context for compartment_id, vcn_id, display_name, or is_enabled.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create an internet gateway' is a tautology that simply restates the tool name 'create_internet_gateway'. It does not differentiate this tool from sibling create_* tools.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description lacks information on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_nat_gateway or create_service_gateway, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server