Skip to main content
Glama
vmware-skills

vmware-nsx-security

by vmware-skills
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_dfw_policy

Destructive

Deletes a DFW security policy. Remove active rules first to avoid refusal.

Instructions

[WRITE] Delete a DFW security policy.

Returns {"status": "deleted", "message": ...}, else {"error", "hint"}. Refuses if the policy still holds active rules: list them with list_dfw_rules and clear each with delete_dfw_rule first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNoOptional NSX Manager target from config.
policy_idYesID of the policy to delete.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.10.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / policy_id / description
      Added value: +"ID of the policy to delete."
    • addedInput schema / properties / target / description
      Added value: +"Optional NSX Manager target from config."
  2. Addedv1.5.29
  3. Removedv1.5.28
  4. First observedv1.3.2

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the return shape on success and error, and the conditional refusal behavior with active rules. This gives the agent realistic expectations for invoking the tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the operation type and resource. Every sentence delivers useful information: return values, error shape, and prerequisite cleanup steps.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return format, error behavior, and prerequisite workflow. The schema covers parameter semantics, so nothing essential is missing.

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 100%: policy_id is described as 'ID of the policy to delete' and target as 'Optional NSX Manager target from config.' The description adds no extra parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 '[WRITE] Delete a DFW security policy,' naming the verb and resource precisely. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_dfw_policies, create_dfw_policy, and update_dfw_policy.

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?

The description explicitly warns that deletion is refused while active rules exist and instructs the agent to list_dfw_rules and delete_dfw_rule first. This provides concrete when-to-use and prerequisite guidance beyond the bare schema.

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