firewalla-mcp-server

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it discloses the MSP API limitation for Firewalla-managed lists (no individual entries returned), clarifies when targets array is populated (user-created lists), and explains the difference between count and targetCount fields. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses bullet points for usage guidelines, separates arguments and returns clearly, and avoids redundant information. Every sentence adds value, such as explaining API limitations and field meanings.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (fetching metadata with API limitations), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral nuances (like API constraints), parameters, and return structure in detail. Although there's no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive return object specification, compensating adequately.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (id and response_format). The description adds minimal extra semantics: it reiterates that id comes from firewalla_list_target_lists (already in schema) and briefly explains response_format options (default and use cases). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without significant added value.

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 explicitly states the verb 'fetch' and resource 'metadata for a single target list by id', making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like firewalla_list_target_lists by focusing on a single list rather than listing all, and clarifies limitations compared to potential expectations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., to answer questions about block mode, source, type, last updated, or size) and when not to use it (e.g., to check if a domain is on the list or get entries). It also references the sibling tool firewalla_list_target_lists for obtaining the id parameter.

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