Skip to main content
Glama

manage_acl

Configure, validate, and retrieve Tailscale Access Control Lists (ACLs) to define network permissions, manage user groups, and assign tag ownership via structured operations.

Instructions

Manage Tailscale Access Control Lists (ACLs)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aclConfigNoACL configuration (required for update/validate operations)
operationYesACL operation to perform

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the manage_acl tool. Handles ACL operations: get, update, validate using Tailscale API.
    async function manageACL(
      args: z.infer<typeof ACLSchema>,
      context: ToolContext,
    ): Promise<CallToolResult> {
      try {
        logger.debug("Managing ACL configuration:", args);
    
        switch (args.operation) {
          case "get": {
            const result = await context.api.getACL();
            if (!result.success) {
              return returnToolError(result.error);
            }
    
            return returnToolSuccess(
              `Current ACL configuration:\n\n${
                typeof result.data === "string"
                  ? result.data
                  : JSON.stringify(result.data, null, 2)
              }`,
            );
          }
    
          case "update": {
            if (!args.aclConfig) {
              return returnToolError(
                "ACL configuration is required for update operation",
              );
            }
    
            const aclString = JSON.stringify(args.aclConfig, null, 2);
            const result = await context.api.updateACL(aclString);
    
            if (!result.success) {
              return returnToolError(result.error);
            }
    
            return returnToolSuccess("ACL configuration updated successfully");
          }
    
          case "validate": {
            if (!args.aclConfig) {
              return returnToolError(
                "ACL configuration is required for validation",
              );
            }
    
            const aclString = JSON.stringify(args.aclConfig, null, 2);
            const result = await context.api.validateACL(aclString);
    
            if (!result.success) {
              return returnToolError(result.error);
            }
    
            return returnToolSuccess("ACL configuration is valid");
          }
    
          default:
            return returnToolError(
              "Invalid ACL operation. Use: get, update, or validate",
            );
        }
      } catch (error) {
        logger.error("Error managing ACL:", error);
        return returnToolError(error);
      }
    }
  • Zod input schema for the manage_acl tool, defining operation (get/update/validate) and optional aclConfig with acls, groups, tagOwners.
    const ACLSchema = z.object({
      operation: z
        .enum(["get", "update", "validate"])
        .describe("ACL operation to perform"),
      aclConfig: z
        .object({
          acls: z
            .array(
              z.object({
                action: z.enum(["accept", "drop"]),
                src: z.array(z.string()),
                dst: z.array(z.string()),
              }),
            )
            .optional()
            .describe("Access control rules"),
          groups: z
            .record(z.string(), z.array(z.string()))
            .optional()
            .describe("User groups definition"),
          tagOwners: z
            .record(z.string(), z.array(z.string()))
            .optional()
            .describe("Tag ownership mapping"),
        })
        .optional()
        .describe("ACL configuration (required for update/validate operations)"),
    });
  • Registration of the manage_acl tool within the aclTools ToolModule export.
      name: "manage_acl",
      description: "Manage Tailscale Access Control Lists (ACLs)",
      inputSchema: ACLSchema,
      handler: manageACL,
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. 'Manage' implies mutation capabilities, but it doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, what side effects occur (e.g., network disruption), or how operations like 'validate' behave. For a tool with complex ACL operations, this is inadequate transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool name that already includes 'manage_acl', though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail. Every word earns its place by identifying the resource being managed.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters (one being a complex nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or the impact of different operations. The agent lacks context about how this tool fits into the broader Tailscale management ecosystem.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain the relationship between 'operation' and 'aclConfig' or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool manages Tailscale Access Control Lists (ACLs), which provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about what 'manage' entails. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like manage_policy_file or manage_network_lock that also handle network policies. The verb 'manage' is vague without clarifying which operations are supported.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like manage_policy_file that might overlap with ACL functionality, the absence of differentiation leaves the agent without usage direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related 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/HexSleeves/tailscale-mcp'

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