Inspect active IP filter rules to verify routing and firewall settings. Provides read-only visibility into configured filters, enabling quick audit of network access controls.
IP filter rules view (read-only)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'read-only' indicating no mutation, which is a key trait. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, or any side effects – minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the read-only hint.
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?
Extremely concise single phrase that front-loads the purpose. No wasted words, but it may be too terse to convey full behavior. For a zero-parameter tool, conciseness is appropriate.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the view returns and when to use it. It only states the resource and read-only nature, missing return format and usage context, leaving the agent under-informed about expected output.
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?
Tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here.
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?
Description states 'IP filter rules view (read-only)' – a clear verb (view) and resource (IP filter rules). It distinguishes from siblings like ipf_set and ipf_rule by indicating read-only, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other view tools. It does not mention alternatives or conditions for use. The agent must infer from the name and sibling list, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.