fortimail.smtp.config.updateUpdates FortiMail SMTP configuration settings via the API, letting AI agents modify options such as proxy_original for email security management.
Purpose: PUT /v1/smtp-config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| settings | Yes | Fields to update (e.g. proxy_original) |
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=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. However the description adds literally zero behavioral context — not whether this is a full replacement or a partial merge, what permissions are needed, or what happens to unspecified fields.
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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — a single fragment that is mostly a URL. There is no front-loaded statement of effect or scope for an agent to act on.
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 mutation tool with a nested free-form settings object, no output schema, and no annotations-level detail about what gets changed, a bare endpoint reference is completely inadequate. An agent cannot know what a valid settings payload looks like or what the call returns.
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 there is only one required parameter, so the baseline is 3 by rule. The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path, but the schema does carry the parameter documentation ('Fields to update (e.g. proxy_original)').
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 restates the tool name/title as an HTTP endpoint (`PUT /v1/smtp-config`); it is a tautology rather than an explanation of what 'SMTP configuration' covers or which attributes can be changed. It does not distinguish this from sibling update tools like fortimail.domains.update or the paired fortimail.smtp.config.get.
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 tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative fortimail.smtp.config.get for reading the current configuration. An agent gets nothing to decide between this and any sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.