OCI MCP Server

create_security_list

Create a security list in OCI with ingress rules for specified TCP ports and CIDR. Default ports include SSH (22), HTTP (80), and HTTPS (443).

Instructions

Create a security list. ingress_tcp_ports defaults to [22, 80, 443].

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_security_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`compartment_id`	Yes
`vcn_id`	Yes
`display_name`	Yes
`ingress_tcp_ports`	No
`ingress_cidr`	No	0.0.0.0/0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. Description only mentions a default value but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, resource limits, or side effects. For a creation tool, this is insufficient.

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 too brief, missing key information about parameters and usage. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description fails to cover essential details. Only one parameter's default is mentioned, leaving the rest unexplained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning only for one parameter (ingress_tcp_ports default). Other required parameters like compartment_id, vcn_id, display_name are not explained.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description explicitly states 'Create a security list', which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from sibling tools that create other resources like subnets or VCNs. The default value for ingress_tcp_ports adds clarity.

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 versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or context like required network setup.

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

Deploy Server