firewall-aiops

dhcp_leases

Read-only

Fetch active DHCP leases (IP, MAC, hostname, state) from an OPNsense or pfSense target, optionally limited to online-only devices.

Instructions

[READ] Active DHCP leases (IP, MAC, hostname, state).

Args: online_only: If True, return only leases marked online; leases whose state the platform did not report are counted in onlineUnknown. target: Firewall target name from config; omit for the default.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "dhcp_leases"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No
`online_only`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile, but the description adds real behavioral context: it discloses that leases the platform did not report are surfaced via an 'onlineUnknown' bucket, which is useful given there is no output schema. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering.

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?

Front-loads the read tag and the resource/return summary, then the two args. Efficient with no filler, though the bracketed '[READ]' prefix is slightly redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

For a two-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields, the online filter, the unknown-state bucket, and the target default, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around ordering/limits, but nothing critical is missing.

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 0%, so the Args block carries the full burden and does compensate: online_only's filtering behavior and the fallback counting rule are explained, and target is defined as a config target name with 'omit for the default'. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema, though the target string format is not specified.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Active DHCP leases') and even enumerates the returned fields (IP, MAC, hostname, state), which cleanly separates it from the static-mapping sibling dhcp_static_mappings. An agent can identify exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The '[READ]' tag and the online_only arg imply a read-only listing use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many siblings (e.g., dhcp_static_mappings vs live leases). Usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.