proxmox_cluster_firewall_ipsetList, create, or delete cluster firewall IP sets to control network access and manage allowed or blocked addresses in Proxmox environments.
Manage cluster firewall IP sets. action=list: list IP sets | action=create: create IP set (elevated) | action=delete: delete IP set (elevated)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | IP set name | |
| action | Yes | ||
| comment | No | Description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0v1.2.2v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds 'elevated' permission context for create/delete, which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe side effects of delete (e.g., impact on associated rules) or any other behavioral nuances.
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 a single sentence followed by a terse action breakdown. It is front-loaded with the purpose and each action is presented clearly without waste.
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 tool with three actions and no output schema, the description covers action semantics but does not clarify that create/delete require the 'name' parameter while list may not. It also doesn't mention whether delete is irreversible or how this tool relates to proxmox_cluster_firewall_ipset_entry, leaving some details to inference.
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 coverage is 67% and the action parameter only has an enum. The description adds meaningful semantics to each enum value ('list IP sets', 'create IP set (elevated)', 'delete IP set (elevated)'), which helps the agent select the correct action. The name and comment parameters are minimally described, but the schema already provides basic descriptions.
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 and resource ('Manage cluster firewall IP sets') and enumerates three actions, which distinguishes it from siblings for rules, aliases, and groups. However, it does not explicitly clarify that individual entries within an IP set are handled by proxmox_cluster_firewall_ipset_entry, leaving a small ambiguity.
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 gives clear context of what the tool does and notes that create/delete require elevated permissions. But it does not explicitly direct the agent to alternative tools (e.g., alias, rule, ipset_entry) or state when not to use this tool, so guidance is mostly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.