Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Runcrate

by io.github.aeonmindai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Change a firewall rule

update_firewall_rule
DestructiveIdempotent

Change a firewall rule from list_firewall_rules: its ports, protocol, sources or description. Fields you leave out stay as they are; sources replaces the whole list. Applies to running machines within about a minute.

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": "update_firewall_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesRule ID from list_firewall_rules
portsNoA port like "8080" or a range like "8000-8100"
sourcesNo["anywhere"], or IP addresses and CIDR ranges, IPv4 or IPv6
protocolNo
workspaceNoWorkspace ID (optional: defaults to the authenticated workspace)
descriptionNo
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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: omitted fields are preserved (PATCH semantics), 'sources' replaces the entire list rather than merging, and changes propagate to running machines in about a minute. The replace-all warning and the propagation delay are exactly the facts an agent needs before calling a destructive mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: identity and fields first, mutation semantics second, propagation timing last. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns (partial update, list replacement, latency). It does not say whether the updated rule is returned or whether the call fails when no fields are supplied, which leaves a small gap.

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 71%, and the description adds real meaning on top: partial-update behavior for omitted fields and replace-not-append semantics for 'sources', neither of which the schema conveys. It omits any mention of the workspace and environment parameters, but those carry their own schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') plus resource ('a firewall rule'), names the sibling that supplies the ID (list_firewall_rules), and enumerates the mutable fields (ports, protocol, sources, description). An agent can distinguish it from add_firewall_rule and remove_firewall_rule without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It establishes the precondition that the rule comes from list_firewall_rules, implying this is for modifying existing rules rather than creating them. It never explicitly says when to use add_firewall_rule or remove_firewall_rule instead, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All Runcrate toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources