Retrieve predefined URL filtering categories from the firewall configuration to identify available categories for security policy rules.
[READ-ONLY] Retrieves predefined URL filtering categories. Reads config at: /config/predefined/pan-url-categories.
| 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds the config path '/config/predefined/pan-url-categories', which gives useful sourcing context, but it does not mention error behavior, authentication needs, or what happens when no firewall is specified.
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 short sentences, with the read-only status and core purpose front-loaded. Every word earns its place and there is no filler or repetition.
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?
This is a simple read-only getter with one optional parameter, a fully documented schema, and annotations covering safety. The description names the config source and the returned resource type. It could mention how it differs from sibling url_category_* tools, but the tool is otherwise complete enough to call.
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%, so the firewall parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema carries the burden.
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 states a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('predefined URL filtering categories') and even names the config path. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like url_category_list, url_category_get, or url_category_find.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as url_category_list, url_category_get, or url_category_find. The '[READ-ONLY]' tag implies safe usage, but the description does not state when this specific getter is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.