List Firewalla boxes accessible to your MSP token, including online status, model, and version. Optionally filter by group ID to view boxes in a specific group.
List the Firewalla boxes this MSP token can see (GET /v2/boxes, optionally one box group), with online status, model and version. Not limited by FIREWALLA_BOX_ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | Get boxes within a specific group (requires group ID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: the endpoint, the optional group filter, the returned fields, and the scope being all boxes visible to the MSP token rather than a single box.
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, information-dense sentence front-loads the action and resource, then adds the endpoint, optional filter, output fields, and scope limitation. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 list tool with zero required parameters and one optional parameter, the description covers what the tool returns, its scope, and the relevant endpoint. No output schema exists, but the returned fields are stated directly.
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 100%, and the schema already documents the optional group parameter and the requirement for a group ID. The description only restates that a group is optional, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('Firewalla boxes this MSP token can see'), names the exact endpoint, and states what information is returned. It is distinct from siblings like get_device_status or search_devices.
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 makes the access scope explicit ('MSP token can see') and clarifies that it is not limited by FIREWALLA_BOX_ID, which helps agents decide when this is the right tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.