firewall-aiops

list_aliases

Read-only

Retrieve all firewall aliases, including name, type, description, and member count, for a given target or the default. Use to audit rules or verify object groups.

Instructions

[READ] All firewall aliases (name, type, description, member count).

Args: 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": "list_aliases"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the read-only safety profile, so the '[READ]' prefix is largely redundant. The description adds that aliases carry a member count and that target selection is config-driven, but discloses nothing about result size, pagination, or filtering behavior.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the essential purpose and the returned fields, followed by arg guidance. No filler, though the bracketed '[READ]' tag is arguably padding given the annotations.

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 read-only, no-output-schema list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the resource, the returned fields, and the parameter's origin and default. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only result volume/ordering is unaddressed.

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 description must compensate for the single 'target' parameter — and it does, explaining it is a firewall target name taken from config and that omitting it selects the default. Only the null-vs-string handling is left to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('All firewall aliases') and enumerates the returned fields (name, type, description, member count), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like add_alias_entry or alias_entries. It stops short of explicitly naming the closest alternative (alias_entries), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it reads as a bulk listing of alias objects, and the only guidance given is that 'target' can be omitted for the default. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alias_entries or rule-related siblings.

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