hpe-security-director-cloud-mcp

sdcloud_list_nat_policy_arp_entries

Inspect proxy-ARP address resolution for NAT policies by listing ARP entries for static, source, or destination translations.

Instructions

List ARP entries for a NAT policy (read-only). Used to inspect proxy-ARP address resolution for static/source/destination NAT translations.

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_id": "<policy_id>",
      "nat_type": "<nat_type>",
      "traffic_match_type": "<traffic_match_type>",
      "address_ids": "<address_ids>"
    },
    "name": "sdcloud_list_nat_policy_arp_entries"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rule_id`	No
`nat_type`	Yes	The NAT type for the rule.
`policy_id`	Yes
`zone_sets`	No	Required when traffic_match_type is ZONE.
`address_ids`	Yes	Translation object IDs such as pool IDs or address IDs.
`traffic_match_type`	Yes	The traffic match type for source/destination matching.
`traffic_match_values`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'read-only' and 'list', implying safe operation, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, data volume considerations, or whether any side effects exist. For a tool with 7 parameters, this is insufficient.

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?

Description is two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the core action. No redundancy, but it could benefit from structured bullet points or clearer separation of purpose and usage.

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 7 parameters, 4 required, and no output schema, the description does not explain return values, pagination, or how parameters relate to each other. It is too minimal to guide an agent in correctly constructing a valid request for this moderately complex tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 57% (moderate), but the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain how parameters like nat_type, traffic_match_type, or address_ids interact or are required. The description's lack of parameter guidance forces the agent to rely solely on the schema, which is partially incomplete.

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?

Description clearly states it lists ARP entries for a NAT policy, specifies it's read-only, and gives context for proxy-ARP inspection. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool sdcloud_list_nat_policy_proxy_ndp_entries which lists NDP entries, potentially causing confusion between IPv4 and IPv6.

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?

Description provides usage context ('inspect proxy-ARP address resolution') but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to similar tools. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server