Skip to main content
Glama

run_commands

Execute policy-approved diagnostic commands on a Prisma SD-WAN ION over SSH, rejecting any disallowed command before connecting.

Instructions

Run a batch of policy-approved commands on one Prisma SD-WAN ION over SSH.

Approved: the display-only dump and inspect families, plus the exact active-diagnostic forms ping, tcpping, and dig -- see the prisma-cli://policy resource. The diagnostics send real packets from the device; everything else is denied fail-closed, with no deny list -- an unmatched command is refused by construction. One denied command rejects the whole batch before any connection is opened.

Call order is fixed and load-bearing: policy validation, then credential availability, then device address resolution, then a bounded TCP reachability probe, then the SSH session itself. A policy denial never reaches address resolution; a missing credential never triggers a resolution call.

Args: commands: One or more ION CLI commands. See the prisma-cli://policy resource for the exact approved forms. The whole batch is rejected if any single command fails the policy. element: Element name or controller ID to target, resolved to an SSH address via the same resolver every other tool uses. Required unless host is given. host: Explicit device address. Always wins: when it is given, no resolution happens and the address is used exactly as supplied. Use it whenever you already know the address, or for a management network the controller API cannot see. Supplying element alongside it is allowed -- the element is then only a label on the response, and nothing is resolved or cross-checked. site: Optional site name/ID to disambiguate element, as in every other semantic tool. Ignored when host is given.

Credentials, SSH port and known_hosts path come from the server's configuration only -- ION_USERNAME, ION_PASSWORD (or ION_PRIVATE_KEY), ION_SSH_PORT, ION_KNOWN_HOSTS. There is deliberately no per-call override: a tool argument is visible to the model and lands in the conversation transcript, which is normally logged. With nothing configured the call fails closed with configuration_error before any resolution, probe or connection. Host-key checking is always strict -- an unknown or mismatched key fails before credentials are sent, as host_key_unverified.

Each command's output is capped independently (the server's configured cap divided across the batch, floored), and every result declares whether it was truncated. A device rejection is that command's own status "error"; sibling commands keep their own status and output. Completion is decided by the device's prompt reappearing, never by elapsed time -- a slow ping is read to completion, not cut short.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostNoExplicit device address. Always wins: when it is given, no resolution happens and the address is used exactly as supplied. Use it whenever you already know the address, or for a management network the controller API cannot see. Supplying `element` alongside it is allowed -- the element is then only a label on the response, and nothing is resolved or cross-checked.
siteNoOptional site name/ID to disambiguate `element`, as in every other semantic tool. Ignored when `host` is given.
elementNoElement name or controller ID to target, resolved to an SSH address via the same resolver every other tool uses. Required unless `host` is given.
commandsYesOne or more ION CLI commands. See the `prisma-cli://policy` resource for the exact approved forms. The whole batch is rejected if any single command fails the policy.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing that diagnostics send real packets, policy validation precedes address resolution, missing credentials fail before any connection, host-key checking is always strict, output is capped per command, and completion is determined by the device prompt. It fully explains the operational side effects and error behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, policy, call order, arguments, credentials, and output behavior. However, it is somewhat verbose and repeats parameter explanations already present in the schema, which reduces conciseness. Overall, the structure is logical and the detail is mostly warranted given the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers all critical operational aspects: policy enforcement, call order, credential handling, host-key verification, output capping, per-command status, and completion semantics. An output schema is present to explain return values, and the description adds context that cannot be inferred from schema or annotations. The tool is complex, and the description is fully sufficient for safe and correct usage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the Args block largely duplicate the schema's own descriptions (e.g., `host` always wins, `element` is a label when `host` given). The description does add the batch rejection rule for `commands` and explains the `commands` parameter's policy dependency, but this is marginal added value. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a batch of policy-approved commands on one Prisma SD-WAN ION over SSH.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by focusing on command execution, and further scopes the purpose via the approved command families (`dump`, `inspect`, `ping`, `tcpping`, `dig`).

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 states which command families are allowed and that everything else is denied fail-closed, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It also explains the fixed call order and fail-closed behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state 'use this for troubleshooting commands versus get_* for retrieving data', so it stops short of a complete alternatives comparison.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/iamdheerajdubey/prisma-sdwan-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server