Retrieve the Security Fabric security rating summary for a FortiGate device and optional VDOM to assess security posture and identify configuration areas needing improvement.
Show the Security Fabric security rating summary (monitor/system/security-rating).
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden: it implies a read via 'Show' but never states that explicitly, and says nothing about permissions, rate limits, scope (single device vs. fabric-wide), or what the summary contains. For an unannotated tool this is a substantial gap.
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 with no filler; the parenthetical API path is compact and mildly useful for orientation. Nothing is wasted, though there is little content to be concise about.
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?
A two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema needs only modest description, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say more about the rating payload (score, categories) and that this is a non-mutating read.
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 both parameters (device_id, vdom) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter hints such as whether vdom is required for fabric-level results.
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 verb ('Show') and resource ('Security Fabric security rating summary'), plus the underlying API path, so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from generic read siblings such as monitor_get or get_device_status, leaving that to inference.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like monitor_get for other monitor endpoints. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the tool for security rating data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.