fortimail.profiles.smtp_auth.listList SMTP authentication profiles for a given domain via the FortiMail engine. Read-only, it helps administrators review and manage email security settings.
Purpose: List SMTP Auth Profile profiles via the engine. Side effects: None (read-only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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, and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Side effects: None (read-only)' line merely restates structured data and adds no new behavioral context. No information about scoping, pagination, or return shape is offered.
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, front-loaded lines with no padding, though 'via the engine' is a wasted phrase that could be dropped without loss.
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 read-only list tool with a fully documented single parameter and no output schema, this is minimally viable. It omits any indication of domain scoping behavior or result format, but the annotations cover the safety profile.
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 a single documented 'domain' parameter, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 and resource (list SMTP Auth profiles), which is distinguishable from the sibling get/create/update/delete tools by the verb. However, 'via the engine' is filler and the awkward 'Profile profiles' phrasing adds no information.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling fortimail.profiles.smtp_auth.get or the parallel imap_auth.list, and no note that results are scoped to the required domain parameter. 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.