Retrieves shared service objects defined at Panorama level, allowing inspection of shared firewall services across managed devices.
[READ-ONLY] Retrieves shared service objects defined at Panorama level. Reads config at: /config/shared/service.
| 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's '[READ-ONLY]' is redundant. However, it adds a behavioral detail by stating the configuration path '/config/shared/service', which tells the agent exactly what data is read. It does not contradict annotations and adds modest context beyond the safety profile.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by a specific config path. There is no redundancy or filler; every word earns its place.
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 retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, the level (Panorama), and the config path. The parameter's conditional requirement is documented in the schema, and the read-only safety is in annotations. No critical information for invoking the tool correctly 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'firewall' is already fully described in the schema with length constraints and conditional requirement. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter, but the high schema coverage means 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', the resource 'shared service objects', and the scope 'at Panorama level'. The phrase 'Reads config at: /config/shared/service' further specifies the source. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_service_objects (firewall-level) and panorama_get_shared_service_groups (groups).
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 for Panorama-level shared objects but does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives like get_service_objects or panorama_get_shared_service_groups. There is no when-not guidance or alternative routing. The schema describes the firewall param, but the description itself lacks usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.