Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OCI MCP Server

OCI MCP Server

by sarthak-pansare
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

create_service_gateway

Create a service gateway to enable private access to an Oracle service in a VCN, using a service ID.

Instructions

Create a service gateway. service_id from list_services.

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>",
      "service_id": "<service_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_service_gateway"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
compartment_idYes
vcn_idYes
display_nameYes
service_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as idempotency, permissions, error handling, or side effects. The description carries the full burden but fails to disclose these traits.

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?

Two short sentences, concise and front-loaded. Could be combined slightly but overall efficient.

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?

With 4 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It omits important context like what a service gateway is, when to create it, or what the response contains.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description only adds context for service_id ('from list_services'), leaving the other three required parameters (compartment_id, vcn_id, display_name) completely unexplained.

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?

Clearly states 'Create a service gateway' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_internet_gateway, create_nat_gateway, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a hint to use list_services for the service_id parameter, which implies a prerequisite. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools