Skip to main content
Glama
Antxine

PanOS MCP Server

by Antxine
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

diagnose_flow

Read-only

Analyze firewall traffic flow to identify why a connection is blocked or allowed, checking user mapping, matching security rules, and recent logs.

Instructions

[READ-ONLY] Analyzes a flow (source -> destination:port) on a firewall: User-ID mapping and groups of the source, rule the firewall actually matches (test security-policy-match with the user), rules allowing the requested application, and recent traffic logs explained. Use for 'no rule allows X', upload app functions, App-ID or network issues.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userNoUser name, with or without domain (e.g. 'jdoe' or 'corp\\jdoe')
deviceNoSpecific firewall; usually omit it (inferred from the source's traffic or device_group).
periodNoRelative time window on receive_time (default: last-24-hrs)
src_ipNoIP address
firewallNoPanorama entry from firewalls.json. Optional when a single Panorama is configured.
protocolNoDefault 6 (TCP)
applicationNoApp-ID, e.g. 'box-uploading'. Partial names also search related functions (e.g. 'box')
destinationYesDestination IP (pre-NAT)
device_groupNoDevice group name (includes what it inherits from shared and parent groups), or 'shared'. When omitted, every location is searched.
destination_portYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.30

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description opens with [READ-ONLY] and lists the actual work performed: user-ID mapping and groups, security-policy-match with the user, application rule lookup, and explained traffic logs. This adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations, including that it internally tests policy matching and searches logs.

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?

Roughly 50 words pack read-only status, what the tool analyzes, and when to use it, with no filler. The [READ-ONLY] tag and action verb are front-loaded, and the 'Use for' tail is appropriately placed.

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?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description communicates the tool's scope and outputs conceptually. It doesn't specify how to choose between user and src_ip as the source or describe the result format, but the high schema coverage mitigates most of that gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 90%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The prose adds light semantic glue, e.g. 'source -> destination:port', 'requested application', and 'App-ID', but does not meaningfully extend the parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States 'Analyzes a flow (source -> destination:port) on a firewall' with a specific verb and resource, then enumerates four concrete analysis outputs. This clearly differentiates it from sibling diagnostic tools like diagnose_user_blocks or diagnose_threat_block, which target different questions.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit use cases: 'no rule allows X', upload app functions, App-ID or network issues. This is clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not mention exclusions or name alternative diagnostic tools, so it stops short of full routing.

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