Fetches shared service groups configured on Panorama, enabling review of service definitions used across firewall policies.
[READ-ONLY] Retrieves shared service groups defined at Panorama level. Reads config at: /config/shared/service-group.
| 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 repeats '[READ-ONLY]' which adds little beyond the annotation. It does add the config path '/config/shared/service-group', giving a useful behavioral detail about the source, but it does not mention response format, pagination, or any side effects. Since annotations cover safety, the description provides only minor additional behavioral context.
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 sentences with no redundant phrasing. It leads with the purpose, then adds the concrete config path, making it efficient and front-loaded. Every sentence contributes value.
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?
Given the simple nature of this read-only getter with one optional parameter, the description is mostly complete: it states what is retrieved, the scope (Panorama level), and the source path. Siblings are disambiguated effectively. The lack of an output schema is not a gap since the tool is straightforward, and the firewall parameter is documented in the schema. A small gap is not describing what qualifies as a 'shared service group', but that is likely unnecessary here.
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 only parameter (firewall) has a complete description in the schema, covering when it is required and what it refers to. The tool description does not add any extra meaning for this parameter. With schema description coverage at 100%, 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 verb 'Retrieves' and the resource 'shared service groups defined at Panorama level', which distinguishes it from firewall-level service groups and shared service objects. The config path further pinpoints the exact target. This makes it easy for an agent to differentiate from siblings.
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 usage context through the phrase 'at Panorama level', suggesting this tool is for shared groups rather than device-level ones. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_service_groups or panorama_get_shared_service_objects, nor does it mention any when-not scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.