Skip to main content
Glama
alexgoller

Illumio MCP Server

by alexgoller
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update-deny-rule

Update an existing deny rule in an Illumio ruleset by href to change its enabled state, consumers, providers, or services. Modify policy definitions directly on the PCE, with user approval required before changes apply.

Instructions

Update an existing deny rule in a ruleset. Identify the rule 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hrefYesDeny rule href (e.g., /orgs/1/sec_policy/draft/rule_sets/123/deny_rules/456)
enabledNoEnable or disable the deny rule
consumersNoUpdated consumer references: 'ams', label hrefs, key=value pairs, or 'iplist:<name>'
providersNoUpdated provider references: 'ams', label hrefs, key=value pairs, or 'iplist:<name>'
ingress_servicesNoReplaces the rule's services. 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.8.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description explicitly flags 'WRITE OPERATION: changes PCE state,' and goes further by explaining client-side approval gating and the critical retry warning: 'the call has not failed and must not be retried while waiting.' With no annotations provided, this is substantial behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences: the function, the write-operation warning, and the gating/retry note. Every sentence carries operational value, and the most critical behavior is front-loaded.

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?

Between the description and the rich schema, all necessary parameters and the key side-effect behaviors are covered. There is no output schema and no mention of success or error responses, a minor gap for an update operation, but not enough to impede correct invocation.

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 100%, and each parameter (href, enabled, consumers, providers, ingress_services) already carries detailed descriptions and constraints. The description adds only minimal href identification guidance, so the 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?

Description states a specific action ('Update an existing deny rule in a ruleset') and the resource ('deny rule'), with the identifier mechanism ('by its href'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like create-deny-rule, delete-deny-rule, and update-sec-rule.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'existing deny rule' implies this is for modifying an existing rule rather than creating or deleting, which is clear contextual guidance. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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