Find and list unused address objects in Panorama configuration to clean up and optimize security policies.
Find unused address objects in Panorama configuration.
Args:
object_type: Type of object to analyze (default: "address")
Returns:
Dict with total_objects, unused_count, and unused_objects list
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_type | No | address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, or how unused is determined. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
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 extremely concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose and only essential details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.
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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic functionality and return structure. However, it omits the definition of 'unused' and any situational context, which would improve completeness for an agent unfamiliar with Panorama.
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 description adds meaning to the single object_type parameter by explaining it is the type of object to analyze with a default of 'address'. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not list valid object types, which would be helpful.
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 it finds unused address objects in Panorama configuration, using specific verb and resource. It differentiates from the sibling tool panorama_unused_zones by specifying 'address objects', but does not explicitly mention the sibling, so clarity is high but not perfect.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as panorama_unused_zones or other analysis tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/angoran/git-netai'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server