Retrieve a specific firewall policy rule group by providing the policy UUID, scope, and group UUID to inspect its configuration.
Get a single rule group within a firewall policy scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | Yes | Rule scope: 'global' or 'zone'. | |
| group_uuid | Yes | ||
| policy_uuid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, error scenarios (e.g., group not found), or idempotency. It only implicitly indicates a read operation.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action. No unnecessary words or fluff.
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 tool has 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not mention return values, prerequisites, or the relationship to other firewall policy tools.
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 schema coverage is only 33% (only 'scope' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, leaving the UUIDs without explanation. Context helps, but explicit description is missing.
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 'Get' and the resource 'single rule group within a firewall policy scope'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list, create, update, and delete by using 'get'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_firewall_policy_rule_groups for retrieving all groups, or get_firewall_policy_rule_in_group for a specific rule). The description only states what it does.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.