Create a new NAT policy with specified name, description, site scope, and order using the Security Director Cloud API. Define policy parameters in a JSON body.
Create a new NAT policy. Body typically includes name, description, all_site_policy, order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It indicates a write operation but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or behavior after creation (e.g., whether deployment is required). The description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) and front-loads the purpose. However, it lacks structure and could mention constraints like required body content or additional properties not allowed. It is concise but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (many siblings, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or post-creation steps. For a create operation, more context on what the call returns or triggers is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'body' has a generic schema description. The tool description adds value by listing typical fields (name, description, all_site_policy, order), providing semantics beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, this additional context elevates the score above baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new NAT policy'), and mentions typical body fields. Among siblings like sdcloud_get_nat_policy and sdcloud_update_nat_policy, it distinguishes itself as a creation tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sdcloud_create_nat_policy_rule). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when not to use it are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.