Skip to main content
Glama

Remove a firewall rule

remove_firewall_rule
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a firewall rule from list_firewall_rules: its ports close on every machine in this environment within about a minute. Removing the SSH rule cuts off SSH from outside.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_firewall_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesRule ID from list_firewall_rules
workspaceNoWorkspace ID (optional: defaults to the authenticated workspace)
environmentNoEnvironment name (optional: defaults to the environment this session acts in)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / env
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Environment name (optional — defaults to main)",
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • addedInput schema / properties / environment
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Environment name (optional: defaults to the environment this session acts in)",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / properties / workspace / description
      Previous value: -"Workspace ID (optional — defaults to authenticated workspace)"New value: +"Workspace ID (optional: defaults to the authenticated workspace)"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — ports close on every machine within about a minute and removing the SSH rule severs external SSH. That propagation timing and blast radius are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the highest-stakes fact (SSH lockout) placed last for emphasis after the general effect. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive 3-parameter tool with full annotation coverage and full schema descriptions, the description supplies the missing blast-radius and timing context; only the explicit alternative tool for modifying rather than removing a rule is absent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that id comes from list_firewall_rules plus the workspace/environment defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (remove a firewall rule) and anchors it to the sibling that produces the input, list_firewall_rules. An agent can distinguish it from add_firewall_rule and update_firewall_rule at a glance.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the SSH caveat signals when removal is risky, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-update_firewall_rule guidance. The consequence warning partially compensates but is not routing guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.