Add a NAT rule to an existing policy rule group by providing the policy ID, group ID, and rule configuration body.
Create a rule inside a NAT policy rule group. Body typically includes name, description, nat_type, sources, destinations, translated addresses/ports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema. | |
| group_id | Yes | ||
| policy_id | Yes |
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 bears full burden. It mentions the typical body fields but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or requires validation. The flexible 'additionalProperties' in the body parameter is not flagged as a potential risk.
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?
Two sentences with no superfluous words. The structure is functional, though the list of body fields could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). Overall efficient and to the point.
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?
Considering the tool has 3 parameters (two with no schema description), no output schema, and no annotations, the description partially compensates by detailing the body content. However, it omits important context like the requirement that the policy and group exist beforehand, and it does not mention the return value or error handling. Adequate but not thorough.
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 schema covers only the 'body' parameter with a vague description. The description adds useful hints about typical fields (name, nat_type, etc.) that the schema lacks. However, 'policy_id' and 'group_id' remain completely undocumented in both schema and description, limiting overall semantic value.
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 a rule inside a NAT policy rule group') and lists typical body fields, distinguishing it from sibling tool 'sdcloud_create_nat_policy_rule' which creates rules outside a group. However, it does not explicitly contrast with that sibling, so clarity is good but not exceptional.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'sdcloud_create_nat_policy_rule' or 'sdcloud_create_nat_policy_rule_in_group' (only one such tool exists). No prerequisites or context provided. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.