list_firewall_rulesRetrieve inbound firewall rules for a public IP using its UUID. Supports pagination to review all configured rules.
List inbound firewall rules on a public IP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ipId | Yes | Public IP identifier (UUID) whose firewall rules to list. | |
| page | No | Page number, 1-indexed. Defaults to 1. | |
| pageSize | No | Items per page (max 500). Defaults to 50; pass page to fetch more. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are limited to inbound rules on a single public IP, which is meaningful scope information, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume despite supporting page/pageSize.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the title. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves it with only one informational clause to carry the whole definition.
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 three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, this is close to adequate: it states the resource, the direction filter, and the parent resource. It still leaves gaps on pagination expectations and on how the inbound-only scope relates to the egress and port-forwarding listing tools.
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 100%, so ipId, page and pageSize are each documented in the schema, including defaults and the max-500 limit. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond confirming that ipId refers to a public IP, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
"List inbound firewall rules on a public IP" gives a specific verb (list), resource (firewall rules), and two scoping qualifiers (inbound, on a public IP). The word "inbound" implicitly separates it from list_egress_rules and list_port_forwarding_rules, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as needing an ipId from list_public_ips, and no exclusions pointing to list_egress_rules or list_network_acl_rules for other rule types. The usage context is only inferable from the phrase "on a public IP."
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.