Fetch normalized firewall filter rules, optionally scoped to one interface or target, to audit policies and diagnose traffic blocks.
[READ] List filter rules (optionally on one interface), normalized.
Args: interface: Optional interface name to filter by (e.g. wan, lan). target: Firewall target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| interface | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the '[READ]' tag merely restates it. The one piece of added context is 'normalized', which hints the output is transformed, but the description never explains what normalization means or whether results are paginated or truncated.
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 definition is front-loaded with the action and scope in one line, followed by a compact Args block. Nothing is padded, though the '[READ]' tag is redundant given the annotation.
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 simple, read-only, two-optional-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation and both arguments adequately. The gaps (meaning of 'normalized', default target value, result size limits) are minor rather than call-blocking.
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 carries the full burden, and it does so reasonably: 'interface' is explained as an optional filter with concrete examples (wan, lan), and 'target' is described as a config name that defaults when omitted. It stops short of naming the actual default value or listing valid interfaces.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List filter rules') plus scope ('optionally on one interface') and a behavioral qualifier ('normalized'). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like rule_detail and rule_stats by being a listing operation, but never names those alternatives, so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the enumeration counterpart to rule_detail/rule_states/rule_stats, but the description never says when to reach for list_rules versus those tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.