Create or update a traffic rule to block, allow, or isolate traffic targeting networks, domains, apps, or IP groups.
Create or update a complex traffic rule
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| target_app_ids | No | ||
| matching_target | Yes | ||
| target_device_ids | No | ||
| target_domain_ids | No | ||
| target_network_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the upsert behavior (create or update), which is genuinely useful since 'ensure' semantics imply it will not fail on existing rules. However, it does not state whether updating an existing rule merges or replaces it, whether unspecified fields are reset, what prerequisites exist, or what side effects occur — notable gaps for a mutating tool.
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 single sentence is front-loaded with the active verb phrase and contains no redundant clauses. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than pruning, and the word 'complex' is wasted, so this is not appropriately sized for the tool's 8-parameter surface.
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?
A 6-word description is grossly inadequate for a tool with 8 parameters, 2 enums, conditional target-array relationships, no annotations, and no output schema. An agent cannot determine which target_* arrays apply to which matching_target values, how updates interact with existing rules, or what a successful invocation returns.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare schema, but it mentions no parameters at all. Critical semantics are undocumented: how matching_target (NETWORK/DOMAIN/APP/APP_GROUP/IP_GROUP) conditionally relates to the various target_*_ids arrays, what the action enum values imply, and what 'enabled' defaults to.
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 pair ('Create or update') and a specific resource ('traffic rule'), making the idempotent upsert nature clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling update_traffic_rule, though the create-or-update phrasing implies the distinction. The qualifier 'complex' is vague filler that does not add meaning.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over update_traffic_rule, delete_traffic_rule, or get_traffic_rules. The 'create or update' phrasing gives an implied usage context, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or routing guidance are provided for an agent deciding between siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.