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

hpe-security-director-cloud-mcp

by ddivins
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

sdcloud_move_nat_policy_rule_groups

Reorders rule groups within a NAT policy by moving groups to a new position.

Instructions

Reorder/move rule groups within a NAT policy. Unlike firewall (which moves individual rules via rules/{rule_uuid}/move), NAT moves are performed at the rule_groups collection level.

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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "sdcloud_move_nat_policy_rule_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesJSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema.
policy_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that rule groups are reordered/moved at the collection level, without detailing side effects, destructive nature, or any other behavioral traits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and efficiently contrasts with firewall without any wasted words.

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, no annotations, and a poorly described body parameter, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the body should contain, what the response looks like, or any constraints.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description does not mention parameters at all. The schema has 50% coverage (policy_id described but body is just an object with no properties), and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the action (reorder/move), the resource (rule groups within a NAT policy), and distinguishes from firewall rule moves by noting that NAT moves are at the rule_groups collection level.

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 description explicitly contrasts this tool with firewall rule moves, providing clear context for when to use it vs the firewall alternative. However, it does not mention any prerequisites or when not to use it.

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