fortimail.profiles.imap_auth.getRetrieve an IMAP authentication profile from a FortiMail domain using its domain name and profile key. Use it to inspect or verify IMAP auth settings for email security.
Purpose: Get one IMAP Auth Profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Profile mkey | |
| domain | Yes | Domain name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context at all (e.g., what happens if the profile key doesn't exist, scoping by domain), so it contributes nothing beyond the structured metadata.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, which is appropriate for a simple getter. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, but nothing is redundant.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should say something about what is retrieved or the need for the domain/profile key, and it does not. For a getter with no return-value documentation, this leaves the agent guessing at the response shape.
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% and both parameters (key, domain) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the required domain/key pairing or their formats.
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 ('Get') and resource ('IMAP Auth Profile'), which clearly separates it from the sibling imap_auth.list/create/update/delete variants. It is clear but adds nothing beyond the title and tool name to differentiate further contexts.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as imap_auth.list, nor prerequisites like needing both a domain and a profile key. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.