pfSense MCP Server

manage_wireguard_peer_allowed_ip

Add or delete allowed IPs for a WireGuard peer to grant or restrict network access. Accepts CIDR or bare addresses, with optional mask and immediate apply.

Instructions

Add or remove an allowed IP for a WireGuard peer

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mask`	No	Prefix length (e.g., 24). Read from `address` when given in CIDR form; a bare address with no mask becomes a host route (/32 or /128)
`descr`	No	Optional description (used for create)
`action`	Yes	Action to perform ('create' or 'delete')
`address`	No	IP address to allow (required for create). Accepts CIDR ('10.0.0.0/24') or a bare address ('10.0.0.0')
`confirm`	No	Must be set to True for delete operations. Safety gate for destructive operations.
`peer_id`	Yes	Parent peer ID the allowed IP belongs to
`allowed_ip_id`	No	Allowed IP ID (required for delete)
`apply_immediately`	No	Whether to apply changes immediately

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.0Sep 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / address / description

Previous value: -"IP address/subnet to allow (required for create, e.g., '10.0.0.0/24')"New value: +"IP address to allow (required for create). Accepts CIDR\n('10.0.0.0/24') or a bare address ('10.0.0.0')"

addedInput schema / properties / mask

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Prefix length (e.g., 24). Read from `address` when given in CIDR\nform; a bare address with no mask becomes a host route (/32 or /128)"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

Annotation Contradiction: the description says 'remove', which is a destructive operation, while annotations declare destructiveHint=false. The schema itself reinforces the destructive nature by describing confirm as a 'Safety gate for destructive operations'. The description therefore misleads about the tool's risk profile.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action and the resource immediately, making it easy to scan and parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The schema and output schema carry most of the detail, so a short description is reasonable. However, the destructiveHint contradiction and the absence of any pointer to search_wireguard_peer_allowed_ips or delete safety behavior leave an important contextual gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters including action, address, mask, confirm, and allowed_ip_id. The description adds no additional param semantics, but it does not need to compensate because the schema carries the full burden.

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?

States a specific operation (add/remove), specific resource (allowed IP), and context (WireGuard peer). This clearly distinguishes it from search_wireguard_peer_allowed_ips, which is a read-only lookup, and from manage_wireguard_tunnel_address.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that search_wireguard_peer_allowed_ips should be used to find peer_id/allowed_ip_id, nor does it explain when to choose create vs delete. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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

Deploy Server