Inspect UFW firewall state, default policies, and active rules to verify security configuration.
Inspect the status and active filtering rules of the UFW firewall.
Returns: JSON string containing UFW active state, default incoming/outgoing policies, and all active firewall rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool inspects rather than modifies and explicitly states the return format (JSON string with active state, policies, and rules). This is adequate for a simple read-only status 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 description is concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and return-value details in a clearly separated block. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and what output to expect, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need for further return-value explanation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description does not need to add parameter details; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for this no-parameter tool.
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 clearly states the tool's function: inspecting UFW firewall status and active filtering rules. It identifies a specific resource (UFW firewall) and differentiates itself from sibling tools, none of which target UFW.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: any time UFW firewall status, default policies, or active rules are needed. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives, but its unique scope among siblings makes the intended usage unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.