Retrieves all administrator accounts configured on a firewall. Use to audit admin access and identify users with management rights.
[READ-ONLY] Retrieves all administrator accounts configured on the firewall. Reads config at: /config/mgt-config/users.
| 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a concrete config source path (/config/mgt-config/users) and a [READ-ONLY] marker, but it does not disclose return format or auth prerequisites, which would add richer behavioral context.
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?
Two short sentences with zero fluff. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the config path is a compact, useful addition. Every word earns its place.
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 query tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and annotations covering safety, this description is complete. It states what is retrieved and where from; nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 single 'firewall' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including when it is required. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline score 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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') plus a precise resource ('all administrator accounts configured on the firewall'), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_admin_roles (accounts vs. roles) even without naming them.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the purpose statement clearly implies the use case: fetch all admin accounts. The large sibling list includes similar get_* tools, so explicit routing would help, but the usage is reasonably self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.