Retrieve active session count and summary from a firewall to monitor current connections and identify traffic load.
[READ-ONLY] Retrieves active session count and summary from the firewall. Executes: show session info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| firewall | No | Target firewall name (from firewalls.json). Required when multiple firewalls are configured; optional otherwise. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.30Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructive=false, but the description adds value by naming the exact actual operation ('Exeecutes: show session info'), which lets an agent predict the firewall command and behavior. It also clarifies that the result is a count and summary rather than raw session listings. No contradictions with annotations.
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 a single efficient sentence with the read-only marker front-loaded, followed by the precise function and underlying command. Every word carries meaning and there is no repetition or filler.
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-only, one-optional-parameter tool, the description is complete: it states what is retrieved, names the underlying command, and the schema already covers the firewall parameter. No output schema exists, but the description adequately indicates the result ('count and summary'), so no critical information is missing.
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%: the lone 'firewall' parameter is already documented with when it is required/optional. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('ctive session count and summary from the firewall'), and the stated CLI command 'show session info' makes the tool's function unmistakable. It is clearly distingushed from sibling get_* diagnostic tools by focusing on session info.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, comparison with alternatives, or exclusions. While it is obviously intended for checking active session information, it does not state conditions or direct agents toward or away from any sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.