Retrieve all multi-object address groups from Palo Alto firewalls to inspect existing group definitions and support policy analysis.
[READ-ONLY] Retrieves all address groups that contain multiple address objects. Reads config at: /config/.../vsys/entry/address-group.
| 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 destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the config path and a potential filtering qualifier, which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it does not clarify the return shape, whether the 'contain multiple address objects' phrase is a filter, or any edge-case behavior.
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 only two short sentences with no filler. The read-only marker and primary action are front-loaded, and the config path is a useful, compact addition.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough information to invoke it: what it retrieves and where it reads from. The ambiguous wording about 'multiple address objects' and the lack of return-format detail are minor gaps.
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?
The single firewall parameter is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description also adds no extra semantics about the parameter or how it affects the result, 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 states a specific action ('Retrieves') and resource ('address groups'), and further identifies the config path. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_address_objects and get_service_groups. The qualifier 'that contain multiple address objects' is slightly ambiguous, but it does not obscure the core purpose.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_address_objects, get_service_groups, or add/delete_address_group. The read-only marker implies safe querying, but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.