firewall-aiops

nat_outbound

Read-only

Retrieve normalized outbound (source) NAT mappings to inspect source translation rules for a firewall target, defaulting when no target is given.

Instructions

[READ] Outbound (source) NAT mappings, normalized.

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": "nat_outbound"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates that. The one piece of added context is 'normalized,' which hints at how results are shaped, but nothing is said about scope (all mappings?), paging, or empty results.

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 blocks with the purpose front-loaded and the argument documented immediately after; nothing is padded. The 'Args:' block is slightly heavier than needed for one parameter but remains efficient.

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 single-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety by inference, and the one argument. Only the absence of any sibling routing or result-shape detail keeps it short of full completeness.

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 coverage is 0% and 'target' is completely undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the full burden: it defines the value as a firewall target name from config and states the default behavior when omitted. That is meaningful compensation for a single optional parameter.

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 ([READ]) and resource (outbound/source NAT mappings), which is enough to separate it from the destination-NAT siblings nat_port_forwards and nat_one_to_one. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling status/list tools. The only usage hint, 'omit for the default,' applies to the argument rather than to tool selection.

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