firewalla-mcp-server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the tool's primary use for audit/inspection ('inspect what's actually happening on the wire'), provides strategic guidance in the 'Audit framing' section, and hints at typical workflows (e.g., 'Start broad... Narrow with query'). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but adds meaningful operational context.

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 with clear sections: purpose statement, usage examples, parameter details, return format, and audit guidance. Every sentence adds value, though it's somewhat lengthy (which is justified given the tool's complexity). The information is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage examples immediately visible.

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 complex search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It includes: clear purpose, specific usage examples, detailed parameter explanations with examples, return format documentation, and strategic audit guidance. The combination of thorough parameter coverage in the schema and rich contextual information in the description makes this fully self-contained for an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by providing concrete query examples in the 'Args' section (e.g., 'blocked:true', 'region:CN', 'device.mac:AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:FF') and explaining the purpose of each parameter in context. It also clarifies the relationship between parameters in the 'Audit framing' section (e.g., 'Use group_by for aggregates; use limit=50 or so for fine-grained review').

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 tool's purpose: 'Search network flows observed by Firewalla with the MSP query grammar. Use this to inspect what's actually happening on the wire.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like firewalla_get_alarm or firewalla_list_devices by focusing on flow inspection rather than alarms, devices, or rules.

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 through the 'Use this to answer' section with five concrete examples (e.g., 'Any outbound flows to region:CN that were NOT blocked?', 'Top talkers by download volume over the last 24h?'). The 'Audit framing' section offers strategic advice on starting broad and narrowing down, plus specific use cases like investigating missed blocks.

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