VPS_getFirewallDetailsV1Retrieve a firewall's configuration and its associated rules by ID. Use this to inspect or validate firewall settings for a VPS.
Retrieve firewall by its ID and rules associated with it.
Use this endpoint to view specific firewall configuration and rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| firewallId | Yes | Firewall ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0v1.2.1v0.2.2v0.2.1v1.0.0Does 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 that the response includes both firewall configuration and associated rules, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavior around invalid IDs, authentication requirements, or error cases. This is acceptable for a simple read but not richly transparent.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second reinforces the intended usage. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only lookup, the description gives enough information: it identifies the required ID and indicates the returned data includes firewall configuration and rules. It lacks an explicit output schema or response structure, but the absence is not critical given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with firewallId already documented as 'Firewall ID.' The description only mirrors this by saying 'by its ID,' adding no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('firewall by its ID') with the additional scope of 'rules associated with it.' Saying 'specific firewall configuration' distinguishes this from the sibling list tool VPS_getFirewallListV1 without ambiguity.
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?
The description explicitly says 'Use this endpoint to view specific firewall configuration and rules,' which gives clear context for when to invoke it. It does not name alternative tools like the list endpoint or mention exclusions, but the intended use case is clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.