Skip to main content
Glama
vmware-skills

vmware-nsx-security

by vmware-skills
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_group

Destructive

Check what would be affected by removing an unwanted NSX security group, then delete it after confirmation; deletion is blocked if anything still references it.

Instructions

[WRITE] Delete an NSX security group; refuses while anything references it.

Use it once get_group shows the group is unwanted. Without confirm=True this only previews: it returns blast_radius (the group's name, path, expression_count, reference_count and references, blockers, unmeasured) and deletes nothing. Show that to the user and get their decision. Do not set confirm=True on your own because the user asked to delete earlier: they have not seen the blast radius yet.

confirm=True refuses if anything still references the group (parent groups from NSX's group-associations API; DFW and gateway-firewall rules and policy applied-to, by walking the rules), and refuses if that check itself fails (fail-safe). When the refusal names a DFW rule, retarget it with update_dfw_rule or drop it with delete_dfw_rule first. Returns {"action": "preview" | "deleted", "blast_radius": ...}, else {"error", "hint", "blast_radius"?}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNoOptional NSX Manager target from config.
confirmNoFalse (default) returns the blast radius and changes nothing. True applies it.
group_idYesID of the group to delete.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.13.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "False (default) returns the blast radius and changes nothing. True applies it.",
+  "title": "Confirm",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.10.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / group_id / description
      Added value: +"ID of the group to delete."
    • addedInput schema / properties / target / description
      Added value: +"Optional NSX Manager target from config."
  3. Addedv1.5.29
  4. Removedv1.5.28
  5. First observedv1.3.2

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already mark this as destructive, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: preview mode with blast_radius, confirmation semantics, fail-safe refusal when reference checks fail, the specific reference sources checked, and the return/error shape. None of this contradicts the annotations; it enriches them well beyond structured fields.

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 long but highly structured: action in the first line, followed by preview behavior, confirmation policy, failure modes, remediation, and return format. Every sentence carries safety-relevant information, and the most important behavioral constraints are front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and three parameters, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the return payload, error shape, refusal conditions, fail-safe behavior, remediation through sibling tools, and the mental model for user confirmation. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly and safely.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema, especially for the confirm parameter, explaining what false (preview) and true (apply) actually do and the safety reasoning. It also reinforces group_id usage, though target remains only lightly touched.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an NSX security group', and immediately adds a distinguishing constraint ('refuses while anything references it'). This clearly separates it from sibling deletion tools like delete_dfw_rule and delete_dfw_policy, whose resources and semantics are different.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use it once get_group shows the group is unwanted') and explicit exclusions ('Do not set confirm=True on your own because the user asked to delete earlier: they have not seen the blast radius yet'). It also names alternative tools for handling refusal cases, update_dfw_rule and delete_dfw_rule.

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