Skip to main content
Glama

create_tier1_gateway

Create a Tier-1 gateway to provide routing between segments, with optional Tier-0 uplink. Set route advertisement to make connected subnets reachable from outside.

Instructions

[WRITE] Create a Tier-1 gateway to route segments, optionally uplinked to a Tier-0.

Use this before create_segment when the segment needs routing; get tier0_path from list_tier0_gateways and edge_cluster_path from list_edge_clusters first. Without route_advertisement, connected subnets stay unreachable from outside until it is set here or via update_tier1_gateway. The same tier1_id overwrites (PUT). Returns the created gateway dict, else {"error", "hint"}; verify with get_tier1_gateway.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNoNSX Manager target from config (default if omitted).
tier1_idYesUnique id (alphanumerics, hyphens, underscores); becomes /infra/tier-1s/<tier1_id>.
tier0_pathNoParent Tier-0 path, e.g. "/infra/tier-0s/<t0-id>"; omit for a standalone gateway.
display_nameYesUI display name.
edge_cluster_pathNoRequired for NAT and other stateful services.
route_advertisementNoComma-separated: TIER1_CONNECTED, TIER1_STATIC_ROUTES, TIER1_NAT, TIER1_LB_VIP, TIER1_LB_SNAT, TIER1_DNS_FORWARDER_IP, TIER1_IPSEC_LOCAL_ENDPOINT.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv1.8.16
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / display_name / description
      Added value: +"UI display name."
    • addedInput schema / properties / edge_cluster_path / description
      Added value: +"Required for NAT and other stateful services."
    • addedInput schema / properties / route_advertisement / description
      Added value: +"Comma-separated: TIER1_CONNECTED, TIER1_STATIC_ROUTES, TIER1_NAT, TIER1_LB_VIP, TIER1_LB_SNAT, TIER1_DNS_FORWARDER_IP, TIER1_IPSEC_LOCAL_ENDPOINT."
    • addedInput schema / properties / target / description
      Added value: +"NSX Manager target from config (default if omitted)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / tier0_path / description
      Added value: +"Parent Tier-0 path, e.g. \"/infra/tier-0s/<t0-id>\"; omit for a standalone gateway."
    • addedInput schema / properties / tier1_id / description
      Added value: +"Unique id (alphanumerics, hyphens, underscores); becomes /infra/tier-1s/<tier1_id>."
  2. Addedv1.8.9
  3. Removedv1.7.6
  4. First observedv1.3.2

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description discloses useful behavior: write semantics, reachability caveat without route_advertisement, PUT-style overwrite for the same tier1_id, return shape, and verification via get_tier1_gateway. However, it contradicts the annotations: the description calls the operation a PUT overwrite, implying idempotency, while idempotentHint is false. Per rules, a contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 information-dense and scannable: the [WRITE] tag is front-loaded, followed by purpose, usage prerequisites, behavioral caveat, overwrite semantics, return value, and verification. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutating tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, failure return shape, verification via get_tier1_gateway, overwrite behavior, and route advertisement side effects. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, aside from the annotation contradiction already flagged.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining where to obtain tier0_path and edge_cluster_path, and by describing the connectivity consequence of omitting route_advertisement. That extra context lifts it above the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb (Create) and resource (Tier-1 gateway to route segments, optionally uplinked to Tier-0). It clearly differentiates from create_segment by saying to use it before create_segment when routing is needed, and from update_tier1_gateway by noting route advertisement can be set later via that sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: use before create_segment when the segment needs routing. It also names prerequisites (get tier0_path from list_tier0_gateways, edge_cluster_path from list_edge_clusters) and identifies update_tier1_gateway as an alternative for setting route advertisement later.

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