Retrieve all host, network, and port entries defined in a firewall alias by specifying its name and optional target firewall.
[READ] The member entries (hosts/networks/ports) of one alias.
Args: name: Alias name (from list_aliases). target: Firewall target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The [READ] prefix explicitly signals this is a read-only operation, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe the return format/structure of the member entries, whether entries follow a specific format, or any pagination/limitation behavior.
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 compact with a docstring-style format, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and using a short Args section. No filler or redundant content. Slightly under-specified in places but structurally efficient.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of information. For a read tool with 2 params, it provides the core purpose and param meanings but lacks return format details, behavioral notes, and edge cases—leaving the agent somewhat blind about what to expect.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'name' (alias name from list_aliases) and 'target' (firewall target name from config, default when omitted), which adds meaning. However, the 'target' parameter's semantics are thin—'firewall target name' is vague without explaining what targets exist or how to discover them.
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 the tool reads member entries (hosts/networks/ports) of one alias, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_aliases (which lists aliases) and add_alias_entry/remove_alias_entry (mutations). However, it doesn't explicitly reference these siblings for differentiation.
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?
The [READ] prefix and 'of one alias' establish context as a read operation, and noting 'name from list_aliases' implies a prerequisite dependency. However, there's no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives like list_aliases or rule_detail, and no exclusions beyond the implied read-only nature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.