OCI MCP Server

create_load_balancer

Creates a flexible load balancer in Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, specifying subnets (regional or two ADs), bandwidth, and privacy mode.

Instructions

Create a flexible Load Balancer. subnet_ids: one regional or two ADs.

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>",
      "display_name": "<display_name>",
      "subnet_ids": "<subnet_ids>"
    },
    "name": "create_load_balancer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`compartment_id`	Yes
`display_name`	Yes
`subnet_ids`	Yes
`shape`	No	flexible
`is_private`	No
`min_bandwidth_mbps`	No
`max_bandwidth_mbps`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, but it discloses almost no behavioral traits—no permissions needed, idempotency, failure handling, or return behavior. The only extra is the subnet constraint.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very concise (one sentence plus a fragment) with no wasted words, but it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, lacking structured details like prerequisites or return values.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It only addresses one parameter's constraint, missing behavior, prerequisites, return values, and error conditions.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% with 7 parameters. The description adds meaning to subnet_ids (regional vs AD-specific) but leaves six other parameters entirely undocumented, providing minimal added value 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 clearly states the tool creates a flexible load balancer and provides a key constraint on subnet_ids. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_network_load_balancer, relying on the name for distinction.

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?

The description gives a specific guideline for subnet_ids (one regional or two ADs) but lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use, and no prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server