mcp-vmware

by Hokonoken

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

vmware_host_firewall

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve default firewall policy and rulesets for an ESXi host, including enabled status and allowed IPs.

Instructions

Firewall of a host (equivalent of esxcli network firewall): default policy and rulesets.

Returns a structured object {host, default_policy, count, rulesets:[{key, label, enabled, all_ips_allowed, allowed_ips}]}. Toggle with vmware_host_firewall_ruleset.

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": {
      "host": "<host>"
    },
    "name": "vmware_host_firewall"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes	Name of the ESXi host
`enabled_only`	No	Show only enabled rulesets

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.) by specifying the equivalent command, return structure, and that toggling is done elsewhere. No contradictions.

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 concise with three sentences: purpose, return structure, and sibling reference. Information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the tool is read-only with only two parameters, the description provides enough context. It could mention prerequisites, but it is adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters.

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 clearly states the tool is for a host firewall (equivalent to esxcli network firewall) and lists the return structure. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the toggle tool vmware_host_firewall_ruleset.

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?

The description indicates usage for reading firewall rulesets and default policy, and hints at toggling via a sibling tool, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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