Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hpe-security-director-cloud-mcp

hpe-security-director-cloud-mcp

by ddivins
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

sdcloud_get_firewall_policy_rule_group

Retrieve a specific rule group from a firewall policy by providing the policy UUID, scope (global or zone), and group UUID.

Instructions

Get a single rule group within a firewall policy scope.

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": {
      "policy_uuid": "<policy_uuid>",
      "scope": "<scope>",
      "group_uuid": "<group_uuid>"
    },
    "name": "sdcloud_get_firewall_policy_rule_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeYesRule scope: 'global' or 'zone'.
group_uuidYes
policy_uuidYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, error scenarios (e.g., group not found), or idempotency. It only implicitly indicates a read 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action. No unnecessary words or fluff.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not mention return values, prerequisites, or the relationship to other firewall policy tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema coverage is only 33% (only 'scope' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, leaving the UUIDs without explanation. Context helps, but explicit description is missing.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'single rule group within a firewall policy scope'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list, create, update, and delete by using 'get'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_firewall_policy_rule_groups for retrieving all groups, or get_firewall_policy_rule_in_group for a specific rule). The description only states what it does.

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