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

hpe-security-director-cloud-mcp

by ddivins
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

sdcloud_list_nat_policy_assignments

View device and site assignments for a NAT policy by providing its ID. Helps verify which resources the policy applies to.

Instructions

List device/site assignments for a NAT policy.

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>"
    },
    "name": "sdcloud_list_nat_policy_assignments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromNo
sizeNo
fieldsNo
sortbyNo
filtersNo
policy_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination (implied by 'from' and 'size' parameters), ordering ('sortby'), filtering ('filters'), or field selection ('fields'). It also does not indicate if the operation is read-only or if special permissions are required.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded but lacks structure; however, for the purpose, it is efficient.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, filtering options, or how to structure the query. A more complete description would include these details.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (from, size, fields, sortby, filters, policy_id). Only 'policy_id' is implicitly tied to 'for a NAT policy', but no details on format or usage. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics.

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 'List' and the resource 'device/site assignments for a NAT policy'. It is distinct from sibling tools like sdcloud_list_nat_policy_rules which list rules, not assignments. However, it could be more specific about what 'assignments' entails, e.g., which devices or sites.

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. The sibling set includes many similar listing tools, but the description does not mention when to prefer this tool, nor does it specify prerequisites or context.

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