Retrieve CPU, memory, and disk utilization from Palo Alto firewalls to monitor system health and capacity.
[READ-ONLY] Retrieves system resource utilization including CPU, memory, and disk usage. Executes: show system resources.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value beyond them by disclosing the exact underlying command (show system resources) and the data categories returned. The leading [READ-ONLY] marker reinforces the annotations rather than contradicting them. It does not describe the response format, but this is secondary given the safety profile is already declared.
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 compact sentences carry the safety signal, the purpose, the data dimensions, and the underlying command with zero filler. The most important information is front-loaded.
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 names the returned dimensions (CPU, memory, disk) and the command executed. It could clarify the output shape further, but nothing essential for correct selection and invocation 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?
The input schema documents the only parameter (firewall) at 100% coverage, including the condition for when it is required (multiple firewalls configured). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but with high schema coverage the baseline 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?
The description pairs a specific verb (Retrieves) with a concrete resource (system resource utilization) and enumerates the dimensions covered (CPU, memory, disk usage). This is clearly distinct from sibling get_* tools that target other resources like routing tables or ARP tables, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.
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 guidance is given on when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as get_firewall_info or get_interfaces, and there are no exclusion criteria or prerequisites stated. Usage context is only implicit in the tool name and the schema's note about when the firewall parameter is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.