Ping a host from the OPNsense firewall and return packet loss and round-trip times via a temporary diagnostics job that is removed afterward.
Ping a host from the firewall and return loss and round-trip times. Works in read-only mode: it only runs a temporary diagnostics job, which is removed afterwards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | ||
| count | No | ||
| timeout | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral facts: the operation is effectively read-only and it creates a temporary diagnostics job that is removed afterwards, so an agent knows nothing persists. It doesn't cover permissions, blocking duration, or failure modes.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the read-only caveat follows immediately.
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 the description needn't explain return values, and the tool's complexity is low. However, with zero schema coverage on three parameters, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to confidently supply 'count' and 'timeout' without guessing units.
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 description mentions none of the three parameters. The meaning of 'count' (number of echo requests, default 3) and 'timeout' (implicitly seconds, default 30) is left entirely to the agent's inference, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Ping a host from the firewall', and it also names the outputs (loss and round-trip times). It is immediately distinguishable from every sibling, none of which performs diagnostics, though it doesn't explicitly say so.
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 use case (connectivity diagnostics from the firewall) is implied but never stated as a condition, and no alternatives or exclusions are given. There is no guidance on when a different tool (e.g., log or neighbor lookup) would be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.