Palo Alto Device Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: checking/installing updates, retrieving system info, managing certificates, running operational commands, upgrading a single firewall, and upgrading HA firewalls via Panorama. The descriptions clearly differentiate the scope and target of each action, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming is mostly consistent with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_install_content_updates, get_system_info, run_operational_mode_command), but there are minor deviations like 'manage_certificates' using a verb_noun format while others include more specific verbs. All names use snake_case, maintaining readability despite slight variations in verb specificity.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for managing Palo Alto firewalls, covering key operations like updates, info retrieval, certificate management, commands, and upgrades. Each tool earns its place by addressing distinct aspects of firewall administration without being overly sparse or bloated.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers essential firewall management tasks, including updates, system info, certificates, operational commands, and upgrades for both single and HA setups. Minor gaps might exist, such as configuration management or policy tools, but the core lifecycle and operational needs are well-addressed, allowing agents to perform most critical workflows.
Average 3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Manage certificates' implies mutation operations (likely creating, deleting, or modifying certificates), but the description doesn't specify what types of operations are supported, what permissions are required, whether changes are destructive, or what the typical response looks like. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty for a tool that likely performs administrative actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point with zero wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that likely performs certificate management operations (which can include destructive actions like certificate deletion or replacement), the description is insufficiently complete. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, an agent wouldn't understand what specific operations are available, what the tool actually does when invoked, or what to expect in return. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters (schema coverage is 100% by default with empty properties), so there are no parameters requiring semantic explanation. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to explain non-existent parameters, which meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the general action ('manage') and resource ('certificates on the Palo Alto firewall'), which provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it's vague about what specific operations are included in 'manage' (create, delete, list, renew, etc.) and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling certificate-related tools (though none are listed among the provided siblings).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. While the sibling tools list doesn't show obvious certificate-related alternatives, the description offers no usage context beyond the generic 'manage' statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'run' implies execution, it doesn't describe what operational mode commands are, whether this requires specific permissions, if commands are destructive, what happens on execution failure, or any rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a command execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a command execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what operational mode commands are, what types of commands are supported, what the response format looks like, or any error conditions. Given the complexity of firewall operations, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with the 'command' parameter well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (it doesn't explain command syntax, examples, or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('run') and target resource ('operational mode command on the Palo Alto firewall'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (like get_system_info or upgrade_firewall) in terms of scope or use case differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other sibling tools, or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage context 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'automatically' which suggests some automation, but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens during the process, whether it's reversible, or any rate limits. For a tool that likely performs system changes, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that clearly states what the tool does. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the essential information. No wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that likely performs system updates (potentially destructive changes), the description is insufficient given no annotations and no output schema. It doesn't explain what 'content updates' means, what gets updated, potential risks, or what to expect after execution. The context signals show this is a parameterless tool, but the description doesn't provide enough operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('check for and install') and resource ('content updates'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'upgrade_firewall' or 'upgrade_ha_firewalls_from_panorama' which might also involve updates, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'upgrade_firewall' or 'run_operational_mode_command' that might also perform system updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get system information' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what type of information is returned, whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with a firewall system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of interacting with a firewall and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'system information' includes, the format of the return value, or any behavioral traits like error handling. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for proper tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline for a parameterless tool. No additional parameter information is provided or required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('system information from the Palo Alto firewall'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (like 'run_operational_mode_command' which might also retrieve system data), so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an upgrade operation which implies a potentially disruptive system change, but doesn't mention downtime implications, rollback capabilities, authentication requirements, or what happens during the upgrade process. For a zero-parameter tool that performs system upgrades, this is a significant behavioral information gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a system upgrade tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the upgrade entails, potential risks, expected duration, success indicators, or what happens if the upgrade fails. Given the complexity of firewall upgrades and the lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema coverage is complete. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('upgrade') and target resource ('Palo Alto firewall'), specifying the upgrade target ('latest PAN-OS version'). It distinguishes from sibling 'upgrade_ha_firewalls_from_panorama' by focusing on single firewall upgrades rather than HA clusters from Panorama. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like 'check_install_content_updates' which might involve similar systems.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or when to choose this over other upgrade-related tools. While the name implies a specific action, there's no contextual guidance for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions upgrading PAN-OS, which implies a potentially destructive or high-impact operation, but fails to detail critical aspects such as required permissions, downtime implications, rollback options, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key action and target, making it highly efficient and easy to parse at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of upgrading HA firewalls (a high-risk operation), the lack of annotations, no output schema, and no parameter details, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, error handling, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with inadequate context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline score of 4 reflects that the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Upgrade PAN-OS') and target resources ('Multiple HA Firewalls through Panorama'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'upgrade_firewall', which appears to be a similar operation but might differ in scope or method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'upgrade_firewall' or other siblings. The description implies it's for upgrading HA firewalls via Panorama, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![paloalto-device-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DynamicEndpoints/paloalto-device-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DynamicEndpoints/paloalto-device-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![paloalto-device-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DynamicEndpoints/paloalto-device-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DynamicEndpoints/paloalto-device-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DynamicEndpoints/paloalto-device-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server