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

delete_firewall_rule

Remove a firewall rule from pfSense by its rule ID. Confirmation is required, and changes are staged until applied or committed.

Instructions

Delete a firewall rule by its ID (the id from list_firewall_rules). Requires confirm=true.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`apply`	No
`confirm`	No
`rule_id`	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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: the confirmation requirement and the staging/apply mechanism. It also implies the destructive nature of the operation. It does not describe side effects like cascading dependencies, but the disclosure is adequate for the operation.

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 two sentences, with the primary action and confirmation requirement stated first, followed by the staging behavior. It is concise with no filler words—every phrase adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description is complete enough for a delete operation with a staging mechanism. It explains the two ways to apply changes and the required confirm flag. It does not cover error handling or preconditions (e.g., rule must exist), but the output schema likely covers return values. Given the complexity and the presence of an output schema, this is adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies rule_id as the ID from list_firewall_rules, confirm as required (true), and apply as the trigger for immediate application versus staging. This provides semantic meaning for all three parameters, though it does not explicitly state defaults or types (which are in the schema).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (delete a firewall rule), identifies the resource by ID, and references the source for obtaining the ID (list_firewall_rules). It is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from other delete tools that target different resources.

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 description provides explicit conditions for use: it requires confirm=true and explains that the deletion is staged until apply_changes or apply=true. This tells the agent when the action will take effect, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative delete tools (e.g., delete_dhcp_static_mapping) or state when not to use it. The usage guidance is solid for the tool's own mechanics but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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