pfsense-mcp-server

A security-first MCP server for pfSense, featuring cryptographically authorized, recoverable WRITE operations and optional hardware-backed anti-rollback protection.

MCP (Model Context Protocol) is the open standard AI assistants use to call tools. This server implements it for pfSense: point an MCP client (Claude, Codex, Cursor, and others) at it, and it gets strongly typed, read-only visibility into one pfSense appliance — system, network, firewall, services, users, certificates, and diagnostics — without exposing raw shell access, an unaudited scripting surface, or a way to mutate the appliance by accident.

Current production contract: 42 READ tools. 0 WRITE tools. The one WRITE capability this project has ever built is not reachable without an operator explicitly opting in, and every individual mutation still requires a real, cryptographically authorized, human-driven approval ceremony — see Security-first by design.

That split is deliberate, not incomplete. See Why this project exists below.

Quick start

python -m venv .venv
.venv/bin/python -m pip install --upgrade pip
.venv/bin/python -m pip install 'pfsense-mcp-server==0.4.2'
install -m 600 /dev/null /absolute/private/path/pfsense-api.key
# put the API key on the first line of that file, then:

{
  "command": "/absolute/path/to/.venv/bin/pfsense-mcp-server",
  "env": {
    "PFSENSE_API_URL": "https://pfsense.example.invalid",
    "PFSENSE_IDENTITY": "api-mcp-admin",
    "PFSENSE_API_KEY_FILE": "/absolute/private/path/pfsense-api.key",
    "PFSENSE_TLS_MODE": "strict"
  }
}

Point your MCP client at that command (the exact configuration key varies by client — see verified client examples), confirm it shows 42 READ tools and no WRITE tools, then try one of the example prompts below. Full configuration reference, troubleshooting, and every environment variable: docs/CONFIGURATION.md.

pfsense-mcp-server is published on PyPI with PEP 740 digital attestations verifiable back to this repository and the exact release commit — no long-lived upload token exists. To build from source instead, see CONTRIBUTING.md.

Example prompts

Ask your MCP client things like:

• "Is my WAN gateway up, and what's the current latency and packet loss?"
• "Show me every active DHCP lease on the LAN."
• "What's the link status of each interface right now?"
• "What firewall rules apply to the WAN interface?"
• "Are all the services I've configured actually running?"
• "Which of my certificates expire in the next 30 days?"
• "Is CARP failover healthy across my HA pair?"
• "What DNS resolver overrides are configured, and do any look wrong?"

Each maps to one typed, capability-gated tool — see the full tool reference for the complete 42-tool catalog.

Why this project exists

I built this project because I wanted AI assistance for pfSense without giving an LLM the ability to accidentally disconnect my own network.

A firewall is not just another application. It is the foundation everything else depends on. Any software capable of changing firewall rules, routing, interfaces, DNS, VPN configuration, or other network-critical settings also has the ability to make that network unreachable — and "the model probably won't make a bad change" is not a safety mechanism, it's a hope. A mistaken tool invocation, a misunderstood request, an implementation defect, or a weak authorization boundary is all it takes. I believe those operations deserve a higher safety standard than simply exposing WRITE tools to an AI model.

This project deliberately started as READ-only. Not because WRITE is impossible. Not because WRITE is undesirable. Because I believe WRITE should be earned through architecture rather than enabled by implementation.

That's the core idea: adding mutation code does not automatically create production mutation capability. The current production surface is READ-only by construction, not by convention — enforced by a static check over the transport layer, verified on every CI run, not a runtime setting someone could accidentally flip. The v0.3.0 release already ships a substantial WRITE-safety framework, and every part of it remains structurally unreachable from the running server.

What this means today:

Current production:

• ✓ 42 READ tools
• ✓ 0 WRITE tools

Update (2026-08-16): every step below has now been exercised end-to-end, twice, against a disposable, isolated LAB appliance — never production or home pfSense — with independently-verified live evidence (see docs/adr/ADR-026-first-write-capability-adapter.md). The default production MCP contract above is still 0 WRITE tools: that remains an explicit operator choice (profile selection), not an architectural gap.

• explicit capability authorization — proven
• Recovery Contracts — proven
• authenticated confirmation — proven
• sealed execution — proven
• reconciliation — proven (offline, production-bound; no live fault ever occurred to exercise it against the real appliance)
• anti-rollback — proven (TPM witness genuinely advanced on both real writes, independently verified against the physical hardware)
• disposable-lab validation — proven
• explicit owner activation — required for every individual mutation, by design; still not something a default configuration or an AI session can trigger on its own

flowchart LR
    subgraph today["Active today"]
        direction LR
        A1[MCP client] -->|stdio| A2[42 capability-gated<br/>READ tools]
        A2 --> A3[GET-only client]
        A3 -->|HTTPS GET| A4[(pfSense)]
    end

    subgraph future["Proven twice against a disposable LAB appliance — requires separate owner authorization for every mutation, never reachable via the default profile"]
        direction LR
        B1[Authorized intent] --> B2[Recovery Contract]
        B2 --> B3[Authenticated<br/>owner confirmation]
        B3 --> B4[Sealed executor]
        B4 --> B5[Semantic verification<br/>/ reconciliation]
        B5 --> B6[Disposable-lab<br/>evidence]
    end

Every box in that second half exists as real, tested code and has now been exercised against a real disposable LAB appliance — a canonical Recovery Contract bound to the exact target and intent; a closed state machine with crash-safe, atomic persistence; Ed25519-authenticated owner confirmation and reconciliation; a sealed executor that is the only component ever allowed to send one bounded mutating request and classify what actually happened, rather than assume success. It has never touched production or home pfSense, and it is not reachable under the default profile shipped to every new installation — reaching it requires an operator to explicitly select PFSENSE_PROFILE=write_protected and then personally drive a real, owner-approved signing ceremony for each individual mutation; nothing about it is automatic or AI-triggerable on its own. See the Tier 1 architecture and the public roadmap for the complete picture, and the security model for what's actually enforced, not just designed.

Different priorities. Other pfSense MCP projects may prioritize convenience, automation, or rapid feature development. This project prioritizes minimizing the chance that an AI-assisted action could unintentionally disrupt critical network infrastructure. Those are different engineering priorities, not necessarily right or wrong ones.

I don't mind if an AI answers a question incorrectly. I do mind if an AI accidentally disconnects my house from the Internet. That single design principle explains almost every architectural decision in this repository.

Security

• Credential fields (API keys, passwords, private keys) never appear in a public model, MCP schema, log line, or exception message — by construction, not filtering.
• Fail-closed configuration and strict TLS by default.
• Explicit capability gates: an MCP tool is reachable only if its capability is in the selected profile's accepted set.
• The supported transport is local stdio; the process controlling that channel is the trust boundary — see the threat model for exactly what that does and does not cover.

Every claim above is backed by a specific test class, listed with the tests that enforce it in SECURITY.md. Report vulnerabilities privately through SECURITY.md — never in a public issue.

Security-first by design

pfSense MCP Server is built around a deliberately conservative security model: READ by default, cryptographically controlled WRITE by explicit authorization. State-changing operations are protected by a transaction-oriented security architecture designed for AI-initiated infrastructure changes — not simply an API credential placed behind an MCP tool.

The security model assumes that an AI agent requesting a mutation is not, by itself, sufficient authority to perform it. The goal is not to make AI-generated infrastructure changes merely possible — it is to make them constrained, attributable, recoverable, and independently verifiable.

Most MCP servers that expose a WRITE-capable API put an API credential behind a tool call and stop there: if the model calls the tool, the change happens. This project was built around a different question — how do you give an AI agent narrowly controlled mutation capability over critical network infrastructure without ever granting it unrestricted administrative authority? The answer implemented below is a multi-party approval pipeline, not a bigger prompt or a stricter system message.

Protected WRITE architecture

• Zero WRITE capabilities exposed by default — reaching the one accepted WRITE tool requires an operator to explicitly select PFSENSE_PROFILE=write_protected.
• Least-privilege pfSense credentials, scoped to exactly the REST endpoints the WRITE path needs — never a broad/administrative account.
• Explicit capability/security-posture gates, independent of and additional to profile selection.
• Deterministic plan and execution-intent binding — the exact target state is bound cryptographically before anything is authorized.
• Ed25519-signed authorization, produced off-host by a human operator.
• Short-lived, single-use authorization — consumed exactly once, independently of confirmation.
• Fresh-state revalidation before execution, with stale-state and concurrent-change refusal.
• A `RecoveryContr