Retrieve DHCP server lease information from a Palo Alto Networks firewall to identify active IP address assignments and troubleshoot address conflicts.
[READ-ONLY] Retrieves DHCP server lease information. Executes: show dhcp server lease all.
| 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 read-only behavior is covered. The description adds the exact command executed, which is helpful context, but it does not disclose return format, whether output can be large, or any filtering/pagination behavior. That is acceptable for a simple read-only command, but no extra behavioral context beyond the annotation is added.
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 compact and information-dense: one sentence states purpose, read-only nature, and the exact CLI command. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary detail, though it could have added a brief note about expected output.
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 one-parameter read-only tool, the definition is complete enough to invoke correctly, but there is no mention of possible response shape or how many leases might be returned. Since there is no output schema, a brief hint about the return data (e.g., lease list with IP/MAC) would improve completeness.
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 schema has one optional parameter (firewall) with a clear description, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add much; it correctly implies the firewall parameter is only required when multiple firewalls are configured, matching the schema's optional-required condition.
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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving DHCP server lease information, specifies a read-only nature, and names the exact firewall command executed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_arp_table / get_routing_table in that it targets DHCP leases specifically.
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 implies usage for querying DHCP lease info and the schema clarifies when the firewall parameter is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention that no write/mutation is involved, though the READ-ONLY prefix partially covers that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.