pfSense MCP Server

search_dhcp_static_mappings

Read-only

Filter DHCP static mappings by MAC, IP, hostname, or interface to locate device reservations across any VLAN.

Instructions

Search DHCP static mappings (reservations) with filtering

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	Page number for pagination
`sort_by`	No	Field to sort by (mac, ipaddr, hostname)	mac
`hostname`	No	Filter by hostname (partial match)
`interface`	No	Restrict to one DHCP server interface (e.g. "lan", "opt1"). Omit to search reservations across ALL interfaces — do that when looking a device up by MAC or IP, since a device may be reserved on any VLAN.
`page_size`	No	Number of results per page
`ip_address`	No	Filter by IP address
`mac_address`	No	Filter by MAC address

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.1.0Sep 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / interface / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

changedInput schema / properties / interface / default
```
Previous value: -"lan"New value: +null
```

changedInput schema / properties / interface / description

Previous value: -"DHCP server interface — required by pfSense API (default: lan)"New value: +"Restrict to one DHCP server interface (e.g. \"lan\", \"opt1\").\n       Omit to search reservations across ALL interfaces — do that\n       when looking a device up by MAC or IP, since a device may be\n       reserved on any VLAN."

removedInput schema / properties / interface / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the word 'filtering', which merely restates what the schema already exposes. It does not mention pagination defaults, sort behavior, partial matching semantics, or the cross-interface search behavior, all of which are meaningful for a DHCP reservation search tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and immediately clarifies the domain term 'reservations'. There is no redundant wording, and every part of the sentence contributes to identifying the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a lightweight search operation.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given that the input schema provides exhaustive parameter documentation and an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values or filter details. The only missing piece is an explicit usage hint about searching across all interfaces when the interface is omitted, but that guidance is already present in the interface parameter's schema description. Overall, an agent has enough structured information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'filtering', which is generic and does not compensate for anything the schema lacks. Since the schema thoroughly documents each filter (hostname partial match, interface omission guidance, pagination, sort), the description does not need to add more, but it also doesn't add value beyond what is already present.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Search DHCP static mappings' with the clarifying alias '(reservations)'. This is unambiguous about what the tool operates on. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling search tools like search_dhcp_leases or search_dhcp_address_pools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 alternatives like search_dhcp_leases or search_dhcp_address_pools. It does not mention the important cross-interface search behavior (e.g., omitting the interface to find a device by MAC/IP) or any prerequisites/exclusions. The only hint is the generic phrase 'with filtering', which leaves all usage decisions to the schema.

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

Deploy Server