Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
threatlocker-mcp

threatlocker-mcp

by Space-C0wboy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

computer_enable_protection

Enable protection on computers to enforce security policies and block unauthorized applications. Specify computers in request body.

Instructions

Computer Enable Protection

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "computer_enable_protection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesRequest body.
organization_idNoOverride the default organization (ManagedOrganizationId header).
override_organization_idNoOptional OverrideManagedOrganizationId header.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

D1.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no information about behavioral traits. It does not state what enabling protection entails, whether it is safe, destructive, or requires permissions. The tool is a black box.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one word, which is extreme under-specification. It lacks structure and fails to provide any useful information while being too short.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of nested parameters and related sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what 'protection' means, nor does it cover return values or usage semantics. The tool is not understandable from the description.

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 coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for parameters. However, the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. For complex nested objects like body.computerDetailDtos, more context would be beneficial. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description is simply the tool's name, repeating 'Computer Enable Protection' without any verb or resource. It is a tautology and fails to specify what enabling protection does or how it differs from other tools.

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 description text provides context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like computer_disable_protection. The absence of guidance means no explicit when-to-use, but it's not misleading.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools