Retrieve the status of the last configuration push to managed devices, verifying whether the push completed successfully or encountered errors.
[READ-ONLY] Retrieves the status of the last configuration push to managed devices. Executes: show config push 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, so the description does not need to establish safety. It adds the underlying command and the 'last push' scope, but does not describe the shape of the status result or any edge cases. This is adequate but not rich behavioral disclosure.
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 entire description is one concise sentence that front-loads the read-only nature, states the action, and gives the command. There is no filler or repeated schema information.
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 one-optional-parameter read-only tool, the schema covers parameters and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds the exact CLI command and clarifies the scope. It only lacks guidance about expected return values and relationship to similar panorama status tools, but it is largely complete for 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 schema fully documents the single optional firewall parameter, and the description adds no additional meaning about it. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool retrieves the status of the last configuration push to managed devices and names the exact command executed. It does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related sibling panorama_get_commit_status, but the resource and operation are specific enough for basic identification.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as panorama_get_commit_status. There is no stated context, prerequisite, or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.