Retrieve SNMP agent status, contact, location, and description for a FortiGate device, optionally scoped to a VDOM, to verify monitoring configuration.
Show SNMP agent status, contact, location and description.
| 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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the field list: no note on required permissions, device reachability/timeout behavior, whether vdom scoping changes results, or error conditions when SNMP is disabled. For a monitoring call against a physical device this is a meaningful 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 zero filler. It is perhaps too terse given the missing context, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 simple two-parameter read with no output schema, the description does enumerate the returned fields, which is the minimum an agent needs. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about what 'status' contains and how failures surface when SNMP is not enabled on the device.
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 ('FortiGate device identifier') and vdom ('Virtual Domain') are already documented, warranting the baseline of 3. The description adds no semantics for either parameter, and its list of fields could be mistaken for inputs rather than outputs.
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 concrete verb ('Show') and a specific resource (SNMP agent status, contact, location, description), so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearby list_snmp_communities, but the distinction (agent sysinfo vs. community strings) is reasonably inferable from the wording.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that device_id must be a reachable FortiGate), and no exclusions or alternatives. The agent must infer that this is a read-only diagnostic call from the verb 'Show' alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.