Reads outbound source NAT mappings from a firewall target, returning normalized translation rules. Helps verify and troubleshoot which source addresses are translated when traffic leaves the network.
[READ] Outbound (source) NAT mappings, normalized.
Args: target: Firewall target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The '[READ]' prefix indicates a read-only operation, which is useful. The tool mentions result normalization ('normalized'), suggesting output is processed/organized in a consistent format. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and doesn't disclose additional behaviors like pagination, filtering capabilities beyond target, or what fields are returned.
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 and front-loaded with the '[READ]' tag and purpose. The Args section is minimal and efficient. No wasted words, though the format is terse.
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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it states the safety profile ([READ]), the resource, and the one parameter. However, it doesn't clarify what 'normalized' means, what fields are returned, or how this relates to the other NAT tools, leaving some gaps for a tool with many closely related siblings.
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 does explain the 'target' parameter ('Firewall target name from config; omit for the default'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Target' title. With only one parameter and the description covering its semantics reasonably well, this is adequate, though paltry.
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 a clear verb+resource: '[READ] Outbound (source) NAT mappings, normalized'. It specifies what is being read (outbound NAT mappings) and their normalized form. It distinguishes from siblings like nat_port_forwards and nat_one_to_one by explicitly noting 'source' NAT, which differentiates these outbound mappings from other NAT types.
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 description provides minimal context: it indicates a target parameter for firewall selection. No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are given. With 30+ sibling tools including nat_port_forwards and nat_one_to_one, there's no guidance on when to choose this over those alternatives, though the 'Outbound (source) NAT' phrasing gives some implicit differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.