Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Sophos Firewall MCP Server

Sophos Firewall MCP Server

by jelmervdm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

sophos_delete_nat_rule

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a NAT rule by name to permanently remove a port-forwarding policy from your Sophos firewall configuration.

Instructions

Delete a NAT rule by name.

Use when permanently removing a NAT or port-forwarding policy.

Args: name: Name of the NAT rule to remove. client: Optional SophosFirewallClient instance.

Returns: API response status dictionary.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "sophos_delete_nat_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the NAT rule to delete.
clientNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'permanently removing' which reinforces the irreversible nature, but does not introduce additional behavioral context beyond what annotations convey. Still, it aligns well.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for usage, followed by clear Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple deletion tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return value. It does not need to elaborate on the output format since the output schema exists.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (name). The description compensates for the client parameter by stating 'Optional SophosFirewallClient instance,' adding meaning beyond the schema's empty description. The Args section matches and clarifies.

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 'Delete a NAT rule by name.' The verb 'Delete' and resource 'NAT rule' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguished from sibling tools like sophos_create_nat_rule or sophos_update_nat_rule.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit guidance: 'Use when permanently removing a NAT or port-forwarding policy.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool, and there is no confusion with alternatives since deletion is unique.

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