OCI MCP Server

teardown_stack

Terminate an OCI instance and tear down its entire VCN, including subnets, gateways, and security lists, cleaning up associated network resources.

Instructions

Terminate an instance and tear down its VCN (subnets, gateways, security lists).

    Order: instance(s) -> subnets -> clear route tables -> IGW/NAT/Service gateways
    -> non-default security lists -> non-default route tables -> VCN.

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": "teardown_stack"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`compartment_id`	Yes
`instance_id`	No
`vcn_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses the order of deletion, which is helpful. However, without annotations, it fails to mention irreversibility, potential failures, or dependencies. The information is adequate but not comprehensive.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise, two sentences, and front-loads the action. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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?

The tool has no output schema and 3 parameters with no explanation. The description gives the order but lacks details on what happens if parameters are omitted, error states, or success conditions. For a destructive tool, more completeness is expected.

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 does not explain the parameters beyond their names and types. For a tool with 3 parameters, the description should compensate but does not provide details on required vs optional parameters or their roles.

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 clearly states the tool terminates an instance and tears down its VCN, listing the order of operations. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'terminate_instance' which only terminates an instance.

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?

The description implies usage for tearing down a stack (instance + VCN) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server