Skip to main content
Glama
coreyhines

coreyhines/opnsense-mcp

by coreyhines
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

interface_device

Create and manage OPNsense interface devices: 802.1Q VLANs and loopbacks, with actions to list, delete, and set IP addresses.

Instructions

Create the devices interfaces are built on: 802.1Q VLANs and loopbacks. Call action='help' for each action's fields and rules.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pcpNo[create_vlan] Priority code point
tagNo[create_vlan] VLAN id, 1 to 4094
uuidNoRecord to act on, identified by a list action.
applyNoApply now rather than leaving the change staged. The default differs by action; action='help' reports each one.
actionYesOperation to run. 'help' lists fields.
deviceNo[delete_loopback] Device name, e.g. lo1. Given, the tool refuses to delete a device an interface is still assigned to
parentNo[create_vlan] Parent device, for example ax0
reasonNo[set_address] Recorded in the configuration history
addressNo[set_address] IPv4 or IPv6 address
confirmNoToken returned by the previous call, to confirm.
interfaceNo[set_address] Interface identifier, e.g. opt12, from the assignment list
descriptionNoFree-text note stored on the record.
subnet_bitsNo[set_address] Prefix length; 32 or 128 for a loopback. 0 is refused: it would claim the whole address space on the interface
planned_addressNo[create_loopback] An address you intend this loopback to carry. Not written here — OPNsense has no per-interface addressing API — but echoed back as the exact step to perform. Use set_interface_address to actually write one
planned_subnet_bitsNo[create_loopback] Prefix length for planned_address, normally 32 or 128

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects and operational behavior. It only says resources are created and directs users to action='help'; it does not disclose deletion behavior, staging versus applying changes, failure modes, or consequences of actions despite some hints existing in parameter descriptions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence provides a useful pointer to action='help' without cluttering the main description, though the phrasing 'devices interfaces are built on' is grammatically awkward.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a multi-action tool with 15 parameters and no output schema or annotations, so a complete description would need to at least outline the main action categories and their effects. Instead, it mentions only creation and defers to dynamic help, leaving significant context for the agent to discover on its own.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the individual parameter descriptions are rich, including refusal cases and action-specific context. The tool description itself adds little parameter meaning, but with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description identifies a specific resource—VLANs and loopbacks—and a create action, which gives some clarity. However, the action enum includes set_address, delete, and list operations that the description never mentions, so it understates the tool's actual scope and could mislead an agent into thinking it only creates resources.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as ipv6, routing, or fw_rule. The instruction to call action='help' is a fallback for field details, not a usage guideline that helps an agent choose this tool appropriately.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools