get_firewall_settingsFetch firewall settings for a domain to inspect CDN security rules, helping you review or troubleshoot configuration before making changes.
[READ] GET /domains/{domain}/firewall/settings (CDN Go SDK; FA firewall API table).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows the safety profile. The description just repeats '[READ]' and provides the raw endpoint, adding no behavioral context like auth requirements, rate limits, or return characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact line with the read indicator and endpoint front-loaded, and it contains no filler text. However, its extreme terseness comes at the cost of overall clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read tool with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is almost entirely endpoint notation. It omits what settings are returned, prerequisites, and any explanation of the required domain parameter, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required domain parameter. The description only shows the {domain} placeholder in the path template, which minimally confirms it is a path parameter but does not explain its format, constraints, or meaning beyond what the schema pattern already implies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a GET endpoint for firewall settings, which clearly identifies a read operation on a specific resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this settings endpoint from sibling tools like get_firewall_rule or list_firewall_rules beyond the URL path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_firewall_settings or list_firewall_rules. The only implied usage is that it retrieves settings, which is already evident from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.