fortimail.reports.listList FortiMail reports with optional filters for report class, domain, and pagination to review email, mailbox, or domain statistics.
Purpose: GET /v1/reports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | Filter by domain mkey when supported by the engine | |
| page_size | No | Page size (max 200) | |
| start_index | No | Pagination offset | |
| report_class | No | Report class filter |
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 safety profile is covered. However, the description adds nothing about pagination behavior beyond schema defaults, rate limits, or the openWorldHint implication. With annotations covering safety, the bar is lower, but the description still provides almost no behavioral context.
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?
The single sentence is concise but under-specified rather than efficient; it conveys a raw endpoint string with no front-loaded purpose. Brevity here is a symptom of missing content, not good structure.
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 read-only listing tool with four optional filters and no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (report metadata? report IDs? list entries?) and how pagination interacts with start_index/page_size. No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value explanation, which it does not.
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%, so all four parameters (domain, page_size, start_index, report_class) are already documented in the schema with descriptions, defaults, ranges, and an enum. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the endpoint path, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 only states 'GET /v1/reports', which is essentially a REST endpoint rather than an explanation of what the tool does. It does not clarify that it lists/fetches available report metadata, nor does it differentiate from siblings like reports.generate.* or reports.download.
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 fortimail.reports.generate.mail_stats, fortimail.reports.download, or fortimail.reports.delete. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.