Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Sophos Firewall MCP Server

Sophos Firewall MCP Server

by jelmervdm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

sophos_list_nat_rules

Read-only

List NAT and DNAT port-forwarding rules from Sophos Firewall, with optional name filter for targeted review.

Instructions

List NAT and DNAT port-forwarding rules on Sophos Firewall.

Use when reviewing Network Address Translation rules and port forwarding.

Args: name: Optional NAT rule name filter. client: Optional SophosFirewallClient instance.

Returns: List or dict of NAT rules.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sophos_list_nat_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoOptional NAT rule name filter.
clientNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which is consistent with the 'list' operation. The description does not add behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as idempotency or side effects.

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 concise, with a clear one-sentence purpose and a structured docstring for parameters and returns. Every sentence is useful and no wasted words.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameters adequately. It does not need to explain return values as the output schema exists.

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 coverage is 50% (name has description, client does not). The description repeats the schema's description for 'name' without adding new meaning. No compensation for the undocumented 'client' parameter.

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 states 'List NAT and DNAT port-forwarding rules on Sophos Firewall,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sophos_get_nat_rule (single rule) and sophos_create_nat_rule (creation).

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?

It says 'Use when reviewing Network Address Translation rules and port forwarding,' providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use.

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