Retrieve recent firewall log entries, newest first, and filter by IP, port, or interface substring to inspect network activity and troubleshoot blocked or allowed traffic.
Recent firewall log entries (newest first), optionally filtered by a substring (IP, port, interface).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| search | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavior – results are ordered newest first and the filter scans IP, port, and interface – but it never says what 'recent' means (time window or buffer size), whether the limit truncates the newest or oldest end, whether search is case-sensitive or regex, or if any privileges are needed. For a zero-annotation tool this leaves substantial behavioral gaps.
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 parenthetical sentence that front-loads the resource and ordering before the optional filter. Every clause carries information; there is no filler or repetition.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the filter and ordering are covered. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the missing definition of 'recent', the role of limit, and the read-only/permission profile leave the definition only minimally adequate for an agent to call it confidently.
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 description coverage is 0% and the schema only supplies titles and defaults, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the 'search' parameter (substring matched against IP, port, or interface), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about 'limit' – neither its effect nor how the default of 100 behaves.
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?
Names a specific resource (firewall log entries), the ordering (newest first), and the optional substring filter over IP/port/interface, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like opn_config_history or opn_overview, which also expose operational data.
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?
Use is implied rather than stated: 'optionally filtered by a substring' hints at when the search parameter applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointing to a sibling for other data. An agent must infer that this is the log-inspection tool rather than, say, a config or settings reader.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.