Ranks firewall denial events by rule, source/destination IP, application, or destination port to show which traffic is blocked and troubleshoot access issues.
Rank firewall denies. group_by is one of RuleName, SrcIp, DstIp, Application, DstPort.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| group_by | No | RuleName | |
| since_minutes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say that this is a read-only aggregation, how the time window (since_minutes, defaulting to 1440) scopes the counts, what limit truncates, or whether results are ordered descending by count. Only the group_by vocabulary is disclosed.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation before the parameter detail, with no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but nothing present is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the group_by domain is covered. Still, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and zero annotations, the description leaves the time-window semantics, the limit behavior, and the read-only nature unstated.
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, and it does partially by enumerating the five legal group_by values, which the schema does not encode as an enum. However, limit and since_minutes are left entirely unexplained, and the meaning of the 1440-minute default (a 24-hour window) is never stated.
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?
"Rank firewall denies" gives a specific verb (rank) plus resource (firewall denies), so an agent immediately knows this returns a top-N aggregation rather than raw sessions. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state how it differs from traffic_volume, but the resource noun is distinctive enough to separate it from the search_* tools.
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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus traffic_volume (volume rather than denies) or search_firewall_sessions (raw sessions rather than ranked aggregates). The agent must infer the selection condition from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.