Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Illumio MCP Server

Illumio MCP Server

by alexgoller
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete-ruleset

Delete a ruleset from the Illumio PCE using its href, removing it from the draft security policy. Clean up obsolete policy groupings with this write operation.

Instructions

Delete a ruleset from the PCE by its href 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.

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": {
      "href": "<href>"
    },
    "name": "delete-ruleset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hrefYesHref of the ruleset to delete (e.g., /orgs/1/sec_policy/draft/rule_sets/123)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.8.0
    • removedInput schema / oneOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "href"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "name"
-    ]
-  }
-]
    • changedInput schema / properties / href / description
      Previous value: -"Href of the ruleset to delete"New value: +"Href of the ruleset to delete (e.g., /orgs/1/sec_policy/draft/rule_sets/123)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / name
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Name of the ruleset to delete (alternative to href)",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "href"
+]
  2. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly flags this as a WRITE OPERATION that changes PCE state and warns that gated clients will pause for approval, emphasizing that retries are inappropriate while waiting. This is valuable context beyond what the schema or name alone would convey.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first fronts the core purpose and the second delivers a critical non-obvious operational warning. Every word earns its place, and the all-caps 'WRITE OPERATION' usefully emphasizes the mutation risk.

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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what is deleted, what changes, and how approval-gated clients behave. It does not describe post-approval responses or failure modes, but this is minor for such a simple operation.

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% for the single href parameter, and the schema already includes a descriptive example. The description merely says 'by its href' without adding format constraints, validation rules, or behavioral meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Delete a ruleset from the PCE') and the required input mechanism ('by its href'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling delete tools such as delete-workload, delete-deny-rule, and delete-sec-rule by naming the exact resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrasing implies the tool is used when a ruleset needs to be deleted by href, but it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives like update-ruleset or delete-deny-rule. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond what the schema already states.

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