fortimail.users.maps.getFind a specific FortiMail user map using its internal mkey, returning the matching entry from the user-maps list for email security administration.
Purpose: Find one map by listing /v1/user-maps (no single-GET in OpenAPI).
Inputs: key — internal mkey.
Side effects: None (read-only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Internal user name (mkey) |
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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds 'Side effects: None (read-only)' which is redundant with annotations, but it also discloses the important behavioral quirk that the tool is implemented as a list-then-filter operation rather than a direct GET. This is useful context beyond annotations, though it doesn't cover things like pagination or result limits.
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 description is extremely concise, using a structured format with Purpose, Inputs, and Side effects. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information (purpose and implementation workaround) is front-loaded. No wasted words.
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?
Given a simple one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description provides the essential implementation detail that the tool lists instead of directly getting. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention return format, but there is no output schema and the implementation detail implies a list response filtered to one item.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the single 'key' parameter as 'Internal user name (mkey)'. The description repeats this as 'key — internal mkey'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the work; the description adds no new syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.
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+resource: find one user map by key. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling fortimail.users.maps.list by specifying 'one map' and noting there is no single-GET in OpenAPI. This is clear and specific, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the other maps siblings like create/update/delete.
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?
The description explains the usage pattern: to retrieve a single user map, you must call the list endpoint and filter, because no single-GET operation exists. This gives clear context and implicitly tells when to use this tool versus the list tool. No explicit exclusions are stated, but the implementation detail is helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.