Sophos Firewall MCP Server

by jelmervdm

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

sophos_get_system_info

Read-only

Inspect appliance model, firmware version, serial number, and uptime to assess system status.

Instructions

Retrieve system information including appliance model, firmware version, serial number, and uptime.

Use when inspecting hardware/firmware details and overall system status.

Args: client: Optional SophosFirewallClient instance.

Returns: System information parameters from Sophos Firewall.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sophos_get_system_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`client`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits) beyond listing what data is retrieved, which is consistent with the annotation.

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 very concise: three short paragraphs plus an args/returns note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and well-structured without any redundant sentences.

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?

For a simple read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter (minimally), and return type. However, the parameter documentation is weak, and there is no mention of prerequisites or authentication, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter 'client' is described as 'Optional SophosFirewallClient instance' with no further details. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain how the parameter affects behavior or provide usage details beyond its optionality.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves system information including specific attributes like appliance model, firmware version, serial number, and uptime. It also explicitly states when to use it, which distinguishes it from siblings that focus on other resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage context: 'Use when inspecting hardware/firmware details and overall system status.' Although it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, the context is sufficient to guide selection among siblings.

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

Deploy Server