Retrieve the NTP configuration of a FortiGate device, including sync mode, servers, and server mode on interfaces, to verify time synchronization settings.
Show the NTP configuration (sync mode, servers, server mode on interfaces).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vdom | No | Virtual Domain | |
| device_id | Yes | FortiGate device identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only retrieval and the parenthetical previews the returned content, but nothing is said about permissions, vdom-scoping semantics, or failure behavior when a device is unreachable — meaningful gaps given zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource first, then the content. Nothing is redundant and there is no filler.
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 output schema, the parenthetical enumeration of sync mode, servers, and per-interface server mode effectively previews what comes back, which is the right compensation. Only the vdom scoping behavior and read-only nature remain unstated.
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%: device_id and vdom are both documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., how vdom affects the returned config), 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?
States a specific retrieval verb ('Show') and a precisely named resource ('NTP configuration') with parenthetical detail on what it contains, which distinguishes it from adjacent getters like get_dns_settings or get_system_time. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it replaces or is replaced by.
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?
Usage is only implied by the resource name: an agent infers it should be called when NTP configuration is needed. There is no statement of when to prefer it over related tools (get_system_time, get_system_global) and no prerequisites such as needing a device_id or vdom context resolved first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.