Retrieve all network interfaces with status, IP addresses, and configuration to inspect firewall network settings.
[READ-ONLY] Retrieves all network interfaces with their status, IP addresses, and configuration. Executes: show interface 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, and the description reinforces this with a [READ-ONLY] prefix. It adds meaningful behavioral context by exposing the exact executed command and the kind of data returned, which goes beyond the annotation defaults.
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 front-loaded: the read-only tag, the purpose, the returned data, and the underlying command all appear in two concise sentences. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 covers the returned fields (status, IP addresses, configuration) and the execution behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
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%, and the firewall parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra semantics about the parameter, but it also does not need to because the schema fully covers validation and purpose.
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 and resource: 'Retrieves all network interfaces with their status, IP addresses, and configuration.' This is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_routing_table or get_vlans. Adding the exact underlying command 'show interface all' further reinforces what the tool does.
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 clearly conveys that this is the tool for retrieving interface-level information, which is enough context for an agent facing many get_* siblings. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but no closer alternative exists in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.