Check IPSec VPN tunnel status and security associations on Palo Alto firewalls. Retrieves current tunnel health and SA details for monitoring and troubleshooting.
[READ-ONLY] Retrieves IPSec VPN tunnel status and security associations. Executes: show vpn ipsec-sa.
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to prove safety. It adds value by disclosing the underlying command ('show vpn ipsec-sa') and the returned data type (status and security associations), giving the agent a clearer expectation of 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?
Two sentences with no filler. The READ-ONLY marker is upfront, the core action is stated immediately, and the command detail adds practical specificity without redundancy.
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, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what command it runs, and what data it returns, leaving no ambiguity for selection or invocation.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single optional 'firewall' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description does not need to repeat parameter details.
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 names a specific verb and resource: retrieving IPSec VPN tunnel status and security associations, and backs it with the exact command executed. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read-only get_* tools.
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 implies the use case: when an agent needs IPSec VPN tunnel status or security association information. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the resource is specific enough that no sibling tool overlaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.