Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
firewall-aiops

firewall-aiops

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

nat_port_forwards

Read-only

Retrieve normalized inbound port-forward (DNAT) rules from OPNsense or pfSense firewalls by target, enabling quick inspection of NAT redirection configurations.

Instructions

[READ] Inbound port-forward (DNAT) rules, 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_port_forwards"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint already declares a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds that rules are 'normalized' and that target comes from config, but says nothing about auth, pagination, or output behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short lines with no filler, front-loaded with [READ] and the resource. The Args section is minimal and directly useful.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly. 'Normalized' is vague and no return structure is described, but no output schema exists to require it.

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% – the target parameter has no description in the schema. The description compensates by explaining it is a firewall target name from config and that omitting it uses the default, covering the essential semantics.

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?

[READ] marks the operation and 'Inbound port-forward (DNAT) rules' names the resource precisely, implicitly distinguishing it from nat_outbound and nat_one_to_one. Lacks an explicit verb like 'list,' but the tag and resource are specific enough for selection.

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 only guidance is for the target argument ('omit for the default'); there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-choose-this-over-nat_outbound/nat_one_to_one. Usage is implied by the purpose and resource scope.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools