Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Sophos Firewall MCP Server

Sophos Firewall MCP Server

by jelmervdm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

sophos_update_firewall_rule_status

Idempotent

Toggle a firewall rule's active state between enabled and disabled without deleting it.

Instructions

Enable or disable an existing firewall rule.

Use when toggling a security policy active state without deleting the rule.

Args: name: Name of the firewall rule. status: Desired state ('Enable' or 'Disable'). 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>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "sophos_update_firewall_rule_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the firewall rule to update.
clientNo
statusYesDesired status: 'Enable' or 'Disable'.

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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it enables/disables, which aligns, but offers no additional behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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 short and to the point, but includes an 'Args' section that somewhat duplicates the schema. However, it is still efficient and structured.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (toggle a rule status) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, and parameters adequately. It is complete for its scope.

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?

The description repeats schema descriptions for name and status, and clarifies client is optional. With 67% schema coverage, this adds marginal value but does not enhance understanding beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Enable or disable' and the resource 'existing firewall rule', and distinguishes from sibling tools like sophos_update_firewall_rule which likely modifies other properties.

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 gives specific use case 'Use when toggling a security policy active state without deleting the rule', providing clear context for when to apply this tool.

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