fortimail.profiles.smtp_auth.getRetrieve a specific SMTP authentication profile by domain and profile key from FortiMail to inspect its email security settings.
Purpose: Get one SMTP 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — not whether a missing profile errors, what is returned, or any auth/scope requirements.
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 waste, but it is so terse that it omits useful context; the '**Purpose:**' label is slightly redundant formatting.
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 simple, fully-annotated read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It still leaves the return shape and error behavior unstated, so it is adequate but not complete.
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%, with both 'key' (Profile mkey) and 'domain' documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as where mkey values come from.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (one SMTP Auth Profile), and 'one' distinguishes it from the sibling list operation. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from nearby siblings like smtp_auth.list or imap_auth.get, so it stops short of a 5.
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 versus smtp_auth.list or the create/update/delete siblings, nor any prerequisites such as needing a domain and profile mkey. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.