Skip to main content
Glama
alexgoller

Illumio MCP Server

by alexgoller
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create-ruleset

Create a security ruleset in the Illumio PCE to define allow or deny traffic rules between workloads using scopes and services.

Instructions

Create a ruleset in the PCE with support for ring-fencing patterns WRITE OPERATION: changes PCE state. In clients that gate tool calls (Claude Desktop, Claude Code), this pauses for the user to approve it -- the call has not failed and must not be retried while waiting.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the ruleset (e.g., 'RS-ELK'). Must be unique in the PCE.
rulesNo
scopesYesList of label combinations that define scopes. Each scope is an array of label values. This need to be label references like /orgs/1/labels/57 or similar. Get the label href from the get-labels tool.
descriptionNoDescription of the ruleset (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.8.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / rules / items / properties / egress_services
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Consumer-side process qualifier: services carrying windows_egress_services, which restrict WHICH PROCESS on the consumer may use this rule. Separate from ingress_services (the provider-side port) — the PCE refuses a Windows egress service in ingress_services. Use both together for 'this binary, to that port'.",
+  "items": {
+    "oneOf": [
+      {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "port": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "proto": {
+            "description": "tcp, udp, icmp or a protocol number"
+          },
+          "to_port": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "port"
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "href": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "href"
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "service": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "service"
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / rules / items / properties / ingress_services / description
      Added value: +"Services this rule covers. Each entry is EITHER an inline port ({'port': 443, 'proto': 'tcp'}), OR a service object by href ({'href': '/orgs/1/sec_policy/draft/services/42'}), OR a service by exact name ({'service': 'All Services'}). Mixing those keys in one entry is an error. For 'any service' use {'service': 'All Services'} — an empty list is rejected by the PCE and {'port': 0} does not mean all ports."
    • addedInput schema / properties / rules / items / properties / ingress_services / items / oneOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "port": {
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "proto": {
+        "description": "tcp, udp, icmp or a protocol number"
+      },
+      "to_port": {
+        "type": "integer"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "port"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "href": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "href"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "service": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "service"
+    ]
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / rules / items / properties / ingress_services / items / properties
      Removed value: -{
-  "port": {
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  "proto": {
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / rules / items / properties / ingress_services / items / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "port",
-  "proto"
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / rules / items / properties / rule_type
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "allow",
+  "description": "Type of rule: 'allow' (default), 'deny' to block specific traffic, or 'override_deny' to block traffic overriding ALL allow rules (emergency use only — highest priority deny)",
+  "enum": [
+    "allow",
+    "deny",
+    "override_deny"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly warns that this is a WRITE OPERATION that changes PCE state and describes the approval-pause behavior in gated clients, including the important warning that the call must not be retried while waiting. This is strong context, though it does not cover post-approval outcomes or failure semantics.

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 two efficient sentences with no filler. The most operationally important facts—that this is a write operation and that gated clients pause for approval—are front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The write/approval behavior is clearly conveyed and the schema covers most parameter semantics, but the description omits guidance on how this tool relates to the ring-fencing sibling tools and does not describe result/return behavior in the absence of an output schema. For a complex create operation with no annotations, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 75%, and the schema already provides rich parameter-level documentation for scopes, rules, ingress/egress services, and name uniqueness. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it stays at the baseline rather than exceeding what the schema already provides.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a ruleset in the PCE', which clearly distinguishes it from update/delete ruleset tools and from workload/IP-list creation tools. However, it does not differentiate it from the closely related create-ringfence or ringfence-batch sibling tools, so it stops one step short of a top score.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create-ringfence, ringfence-batch, or create-deny-rule. Mentioning 'support for ring-fencing patterns' hints at relevance but does not tell an agent when this generic ruleset creation path is preferable to the ring-fence-specific tools.

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