Retrieves all security policy rules from a firewall, enabling policy inspection and configuration verification.
[READ-ONLY] Retrieves all security policy rules from the firewall. Reads config at: /config/.../rulebase/security/rules.
| 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 '[READ-ONLY]'. It adds the config path detail, which is useful context, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as response size or pagination. With annotations covering safety, the bar is lower, but the extra context is minimal.
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 two short sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the config path adds a concrete detail without padding.
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 well-documented parameter, the description is largely complete. It states the resource and scope, and the lack of an output schema is mitigated by the clear implication that the return is the list of rules. Minor missing context includes any caveats about large responses or how the firewall parameter affects the query, but these are not critical for basic usage.
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 provides a full description of the 'firewall' parameter (including when it is required vs optional). The description adds no additional meaning or syntax beyond what the schema already covers, so it relies on the schema's 100% coverage.
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 states the action ('Retrieves all security policy rules') and the resource ('security policy rules') with scope ('all'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_security_profiles (different resource) and find_security_rules (which implies search/filter) by emphasizing 'all'.
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 the tool is for retrieving the full rulebase, but it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives like find_security_rules or when not to use it. The sibling list contains a similar tool, but no direct contrast is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.