pfSense MCP Server

update_traffic_limiter

Idempotent

Update an existing pfSense traffic limiter by ID to adjust bandwidth, scheduler, or enablement, with immediate application.

Instructions

Update an existing traffic limiter by ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`aqm`	No	Queue management algorithm (droptail, codel, pie, red, gred)
`mask`	No	Mask type (none, srcaddress, dstaddress)
`name`	No	Limiter name
`descr`	No	Description
`sched`	No	Scheduler (wf2q+, fifo, qfq, rr, prio, fq_codel, fq_pie)
`enabled`	No	Whether the limiter is enabled
`maskbits`	No	Mask bits for per-host limiting
`bandwidth`	No	Bandwidth value (pass together with bandwidthtype; replaces the limiter's bandwidth list with this single value)
`limiter_id`	Yes	Traffic limiter ID (from search_traffic_limiters)
`bandwidthtype`	No	Bandwidth unit (b, Kb, Mb, Gb — Gb is sent as Mb)
`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.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.1.0Sep 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / aqm

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Queue management algorithm (droptail, codel, pie, red, gred)"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / bandwidth / description

Previous value: -"Bandwidth value"New value: +"Bandwidth value (pass together with bandwidthtype; replaces\nthe limiter's bandwidth list with this single value)"

changedInput schema / properties / bandwidthtype / description

Previous value: -"Bandwidth unit (Kb, Mb, Gb, b)"New value: +"Bandwidth unit (b, Kb, Mb, Gb — Gb is sent as Mb)"

addedInput schema / properties / sched

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Scheduler (wf2q+, fifo, qfq, rr, prio, fq_codel, fq_pie)"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the basic write behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether omitted fields retain their values (partial update vs full replace), how apply_immediately affects the operation, or any side effects. With annotations already present, the description contributes minimal extra transparency.

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 a single, short sentence that is concise and front-loads the core action. There is no wasted text, though it is arguably too terse to provide meaningful guidance. It earns a 4 for being concise, but it lacks structure that would highlight critical usage notes.

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?

Given 11 parameters and a non-trivial update operation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that fields are optional and that only supplied fields are updated, nor does it mention the apply_immediately flag's role or that the limiter_id must come from a prior search. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the usage context for a partial update is missing.

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 all parameters are documented in the input schema, including limiter_id and the optional fields. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden, and the description does not conflict or omit.

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 states the verb 'update' and the resource 'traffic limiter', and adds the scope 'by ID' and 'existing', which distinguishes it from creation. It does not explicitly contrast with create_traffic_limiter, but the word 'existing' implies an update operation on a pre-existing object, making the purpose clear.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus create_traffic_limiter or delete_traffic_limiter. It does not mention the prerequisite of searching for an ID first, nor does it explain that only provided fields are updated. The schema's limiter_id description hints at search_traffic_limiters, but the tool description itself gives no usage context.

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

Deploy Server