Skip to main content
Glama
BigfootBytes

threatlocker-mcp-server

by BigfootBytes

ThreatLocker Tags

tags

Query and manage reusable network labels used to simplify policy creation. List labels, retrieve details by ID, or replace label membership for Network Control, Ringfencing, and Storage Control.

Instructions

Query ThreatLocker tags for network and policy management.

Tags are reusable labels for IP addresses, domains, ports, or other network identifiers. They simplify policy management by letting you reference "CRM Servers" instead of listing individual IPs.

Common workflows:

  • List all available tags: action=dropdown

  • Include ThreatLocker built-in tags: action=dropdown, includeBuiltIns=true

  • Get tag details by ID: action=get, tagId="..."

  • Update tag membership: action=update, tagId="...", organizationId="..." (full-object replace — get first, resend ALL item arrays you want to keep; there is no insert/delete endpoint)

Tags are used in:

  • Network Control policies (allow/deny traffic to tagged destinations)

  • Ringfencing (restrict app network access to tagged resources)

  • Storage Control (restrict file access to tagged paths)

Parent organization tags appear as "parentOrgName\tagName" format.

Pitfalls:

  • Use dropdown to get the label+value (tagId) needed when building network/ringfence policy payloads.

  • Parent-organization tags use the "ParentOrg\TagName" format.

Permissions: Edit Network Control Policies, Manage Tags, Edit Application Control Policies. Key response fields: tagId, name, tagType, values (IP/domain/port entries).

Related tools: policies (use tags in policy rules), applications (ringfence with tags)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoTag name (update).
tagIdNoTag GUID (required for get, update). Find via dropdown action first.
actionYesget=single tag details, dropdown=list all available tags for selection, update=replace a tag's membership (full-object replace — get first, resend all items)
activeNoWhether the tag is active (update; default true).
tagTypeNoTag type filter: 1=Network tags (default)
allTagItemsNoupdate: optional flattened tag-item view (round-trip from get).
tagItemsIPv4Noupdate: IPv4 entries {label,value}. Full replace.
tagItemsIPv6Noupdate: IPv6 entries {label,value}. Full replace.
tagItemsTextNoupdate: text/domain entries {label,value}. Full replace.
fetchAllPagesNoFetch all pages automatically (max 10 pages). Default: false (single page).
organizationIdNoOrganization GUID that owns the tag (required for update).
includeBuiltInsNoInclude ThreatLocker built-in tags (default: false)
response_formatNoOutput format: markdown (default, human-readable) or json (structured)markdown
tagItemsReadablePathNoupdate: readable-path entries {label,value}. Use \\ in path values. Full replace.
tagItemsWritablePathNoupdate: writable-path entries {label,value}. Use \\ in path values. Full replace.
includeNetworkTagInMasterNoInclude network tags in master (default: true)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoResponse data — shape varies by action
errorNo
successYes
paginationNo
Install Server

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description is rich in behavioral detail: full-object replace semantics, 'get first, resend ALL item arrays you want to keep', no insert/delete endpoint, parent-organization naming format, pagination, and permissions. These details go far beyond the annotations and help the agent avoid data loss; no contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is well-organized with headers, workflows, pitfalls, permissions, and key fields, and it fronts the action patterns. It is long, but the 16-parameter surface justifies it; there is minor redundancy in the parent-tag naming format being stated twice.

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?

Given the complexity (16 parameters, multi-action dispatch, mutable update semantics), the description covers workflows, prerequisites, pitfalls, permissions, key response fields, and related tools. An output schema exists, so the lack of a full return spec is acceptable; the description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description still adds workflow-level semantics: parameter combos for each action, the prerequisite of dropdown before get/update, full-replace behavior of item arrays, and the need for organizationId on update. This materially helps correct parameter selection beyond the schema itself.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource (ThreatLocker tags) and enumerates the exact actions (dropdown, get, update) with common workflows, so an agent can tell what the tool does. It slightly understates scope by opening with 'Query' when a full-object-replace update is also a core operation, but the body immediately corrects that.

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?

Common workflows act as usage guidance: 'List all available tags: action=dropdown', 'Update tag membership: action=update, tagId=..., organizationId=...'. It gives clear contextual advice such as using dropdown to obttain tagId for policy payloads, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus a sibling.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BigfootBytes/threatlocker-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server