Retrieve detailed configuration for a specific FortiGate firewall policy by device and policy ID, optionally within a VDOM, to inspect rules and settings.
Get detailed information for a specific firewall policy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vdom | No | Virtual Domain | |
| device_id | Yes | FortiGate device identifier | |
| policy_id | Yes | Policy ID to get details for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read, but the description does not state what 'detailed information' includes, whether it can fail for missing policies, or what permissions are required. That is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.
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 front-loaded and free of filler, which suits a simple retrieval tool. It is arguably too terse rather than wasteful, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral detail, yet it never describes the returned detail (NAT, security profiles, counters) or failure modes. For a tool sitting among many firewall-policy siblings, that leaves the agent under-informed.
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 device_id, policy_id, and vdom are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting details (e.g., how a null vdom is resolved), so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (get) and resource (firewall policy detail) and implies retrieval of one policy versus the sibling list_firewall_policies. It does not explicitly name the contrast, but the singular 'specific' and 'detail' make the distinction inferable.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this instead of list_firewall_policies or lookup_policy, and no prerequisites such as whether a vdom context is needed or whether device_id must come from list_devices. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.