Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Sophos Firewall MCP Server

Sophos Firewall MCP Server

by jelmervdm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

sophos_list_services

Read-only

List custom and predefined TCP, UDP, ICMP, and IP protocol definitions from Sophos Firewall. Filter by service name to inspect specific port and protocol configurations.

Instructions

List service objects (TCP, UDP, ICMP, IP protocol definitions).

Use when inspecting custom or predefined port and protocol definitions.

Args: name: Optional service name filter. client: Optional SophosFirewallClient instance.

Returns: List or dict of service definitions.

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_services"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoOptional service definition name filter.
clientNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds the return type (list/dict) and briefly mentions the service types. No further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, limits) are given, but the read-only nature is clear.

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 separate sections for purpose, usage, args, and returns. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the main action.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a list tool with a simple input schema and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the core functionality and usage context. No critical gaps remain.

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 50%; only the 'name' parameter has a schema description. The tool description restates the name filter but adds no details for the 'client' parameter, which remains undocumented. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 tool lists service objects including TCP, UDP, ICMP, and IP protocol definitions. This verb+resource pairing is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sophos_list_ip_hosts or sophos_list_firewall_rules.

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?

Explicitly says to use 'when inspecting custom or predefined port and protocol definitions.' While it doesn't mention alternatives, the context is clear for a simple read operation.

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