Retrieves WildFire cloud connection status and statistics from a target firewall, enabling verification of cloud integration and diagnosis of connectivity issues.
[READ-ONLY] Retrieves WildFire cloud connection status and statistics. Executes: show wildfire status.
| 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; the description reinforces this with '[READ-ONLY]' and adds the execution command. It does not describe output shape or which statistics are returned, but for a simple read-only retrieval the existing coverage is adequate and there is no contradiction.
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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and the CLI command adds useful context. The '[READ-ONLY]' prefix is redundant with annotations but minor; overall there is no wasted material.
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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it returns ('status and statistics'), the execution mechanism, and safety. It could be more explicit about which statistics are included, but nothing essential is missing for correct 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema fully documents the firewall parameter including source file and requirement condition. The description itself adds no parameter detail, so 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?
States a precise verb ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('WildFire cloud connection status and statistics'), and additionally names the underlying CLI command, 'show wildfire status'. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling status tools like get_ha_status or get_licenses without opening schemas.
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?
Usage is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer 'use this when WildFire connection status/stats are needed.' There is no when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no context about when the optional firewall parameter matters, though the schema covers that detail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.