Retrieve firewall traffic logs from the last 24 hours, filtered by allow/deny action or destination IP, to inspect network activity and investigate security events.
Return firewall traffic logs for the last 24 hours
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | Filter by action: allow or deny | |
| destination_ip | No | Filter by destination IP |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states the fixed 24-hour window. It says nothing about permissions required, result size or pagination, whether results are capped, or the shape of a log entry.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the 24-hour scope is stated immediately. It is efficient, though brevity here borders on under-specification handled in other dimensions.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should describe the return shape (fields per log entry), volume expectations, or truncation behavior. For a read tool that can return large log sets, stating only the time window leaves key details 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% and both optional filters (action, destination_ip) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about how the filters combine or whether they are ANDed.
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?
Specific verb ('Return') plus resource ('firewall traffic logs') and a stated time scope of 24 hours. It is clearly distinguishable from the siblings (device info, rulebase, tool listing), though it never names them explicitly.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other fw_* tools, and no mention of prerequisites, expected log volume, or whether the filters are meant to narrow a normally large result set. An agent must infer all of this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.