Check whether the Suricata IDS/IPS service on OPNsense is running, stopped, or disabled to verify intrusion detection status before planning or applying firewall changes.
Whether the Suricata IDS/IPS service is running, stopped, or disabled.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds useful detail by enumerating the possible states (running, stopped, disabled), which is more than a bare status check would convey, but it says nothing about return format, refresh behavior or permissions.
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 compact sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the resource, though the 'Whether ...' phrasing reads as a sentence fragment rather than a direct statement of action.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value; it partially does so by listing the three possible states, but doesn't say whether these come back as a string, an object, or with extra fields. Adequate but leaves a real gap for a zero-param query tool.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.
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 names the specific resource (the Suricata IDS/IPS service) and the information returned (running/stopped/disabled), so an agent knows exactly what it queries. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like suricata_alert_status or suricata_settings, leaving some ambiguity about whether this covers daemon state versus alerting state.
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?
There is no indication of when to call this versus the siblings (suricata_alert_status, suricata_settings, service_list) or any prerequisites/context. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.