get_firewall_rulesList all firewall rules, including access-lists with entries, IP firewall settings, and interface access-groups, to audit router security.
List firewall rules: access-lists with their entries, ip firewall settings and interface access-groups
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing what the read returns (access-lists with entries, IP firewall settings, interface access-groups), which is important given there is no output schema.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause enumerates a distinct category of returned data. It is appropriately sized for a zero-argument listing tool.
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 no parameters, a fully covered empty schema, and annotations that carry the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It enumerates the returned categories, which is valuable absent an output schema, though it could mention return format or ordering/pagination for full completeness.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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 (List) and resource (firewall rules) and even enumerates the sub-components returned: access-lists with entries, IP firewall settings, and interface access-groups. It clearly distinguishes itself from non-firewall siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool, which isn't necessary here since no sibling overlaps.
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?
Usage is implied by the 'List' verb and the tool's no-argument, read-only nature, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or reference to alternative tools. For a simple getter this is minimally adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.