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_nat_pool

Retrieve a NAT pool object by providing its pool ID. Use this to get details of a specific NAT pool configured in Security Director Cloud.

Instructions

Get a NAT pool object by pool ID.

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": {
      "pool_id": "<pool_id>"
    },
    "name": "sdcloud_get_nat_pool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pool_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers minimal behavioral context beyond the action 'Get'. It does not disclose return format, error conditions, authentication requirements, or any side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too brief for a complete understanding.

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 no output schema and a single parameter, the description lacks details on return values, error handling, and how this tool fits into the broader NAT pool workflow (e.g., after create or update).

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 description explicitly states 'by pool ID', adding context to the required parameter pool_id. However, it does not describe format, constraints, or examples, and schema coverage is 0%.

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 uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (NAT pool object) and identifies the key identifier (pool ID). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list (which returns multiple objects) and create/update/delete.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or mention related tools like list_nat_pools.

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