io.github.antonio-mello-ai/mcp-pfsense

add_dhcp_static_mapping

Create a DHCP static mapping to reserve an IP for a MAC address, applying changes immediately or staging for later batch application.

Instructions

Create a DHCP static mapping (IP reservation) for a MAC address.

Staged until apply_changes('dhcp') is called or apply=true is passed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mac`	Yes
`apply`	No
`descr`	No
`ipaddr`	Yes
`hostname`	No
`interface`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0Sep 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / apply

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Apply",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv0.1.1Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it uses it well: it discloses the non-obvious staged-apply behavior and the effect of the apply parameter. It could add conflict/idempotency behavior, but the core side-effect model is clear.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second states the critical staging behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and the output schema likely covers return values, but with six parameters and no annotations the description leaves parameter semantics mostly to inference. The staging behavior is the essential context and is present, but an agent still lacks guidance on required interface/IP values or duplicate handling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains MAC address context and the apply boolean. The required interface and ipaddr parameters plus hostname and descr receive no semantic explanation beyond their names.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: "Create a DHCP static mapping (IP reservation) for a MAC address." It is clearly a creation operation and distinct from siblings like delete_dhcp_static_mapping and list_dhcp_static_mappings, though it does not explicitly call out the distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The staging note is practical usage guidance: the mapping is not persisted until apply_changes('dhcp') is called or apply=true is passed. This tells the agent when follow-up is required, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as delete_dhcp_static_mapping or list_dhcp_static_mappings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.