Skip to main content
Glama
alexgoller

Illumio MCP Server

by alexgoller
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

discover-process-egress

Uncover shadow IT by finding which processes talk to external destinations outside your managed estate. Get ranked process-to-destination egress findings with policy decisions.

Instructions

Find which processes talk to destinations outside this PCE's managed estate - the shadow-IT / unsanctioned-egress question. Returns ranked findings of process -> external destination with port, protocol, the user, current policy decision and volume, preferring an FQDN over a bare IP where the PCE resolved one. Use this instead of get-traffic-flows when the question is 'what is talking out', not 'show me all traffic'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax findings returned. Default 50.
processNoOnly these processes. Substring, case-insensitive, e.g. ['claude','chrome']. Omit for all.
end_dateNoEnd (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to now.
start_dateNoStart (YYYY-MM-DD). Overrides lookback_days.
max_resultsNoMax flows to pull from the PCE. Capped at 500.
lookback_daysNoDays to look back. Default 7. Ignored if start_date is given.
include_sourcesNoRestrict to these sources. Accepts label shorthand 'key=value' (e.g. 'app=vdi'), HREFs, IPs or FQDNs.
policy_decisionsNoFilter by decision, e.g. ['allowed'] to show only egress current policy permits.
only_named_processesNoDefault true. When false, also returns egress with no process attribution (the PCE only reports process names where the VEN has process visibility enabled).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.8.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the output shape (ranked process-to-external-destination findings with port, protocol, user, policy decision, and volume) and the FQDN-over-IP resolution behavior. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only semantics, 'Find' and 'Returns' strongly imply a non-mutating operation.

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 dense sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the return value is summarized in the middle, and the routing guidance to a sibling appears at the end. Every clause earns its place.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus fully covered schema provides enough for an agent to call it correctly: purpose, output contents, FQDN preference, and when to choose it are all stated. A minor gap is not distinguishing it from find-unmanaged-traffic, but the main alternative get-traffic-flows is addressed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so every parameter is already documented with defaults and filter semantics. The tool description adds general context about the findings' meaning but doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema. A baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find which processes talk to destinations outside this PCE's managed estate', which precisely frames the shadow-IT question. It also names get-traffic-flows as the sibling to avoid, making the tool's unique role immediately clear.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use this tool instead of an alternative: 'Use this instead of get-traffic-flows when the question is what is talking out, not show me all traffic'. This gives an unambiguous decision rule with a named sibling, requiring no inference.

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