Retrieve a FortiGate device's current clock and timezone to verify system time settings for troubleshooting or configuration checks.
Show the device clock and timezone (monitor/system/time).
| 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 exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Show' signals a read-only, non-mutating operation and the endpoint path hints the data comes from the live monitor subsystem rather than stored config, but permission requirements, whether the device is queried in real time, and failure behavior are unstated.
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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the API path appended as supporting detail. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical path is of marginal value to an agent that cannot call the API directly.
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 tool with full schema coverage, the definition is nearly sufficient. Minor gap: with no output schema, the description could hint at what the response contains (current time, timezone, DST state), but for this level of complexity the omission is small.
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%, with device_id ('FortiGate device identifier') and vdom ('Virtual Domain') already documented. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, 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?
Specific verb ('Show') plus concrete resource ('device clock and timezone'), with the underlying API path (monitor/system/time) as corroboration. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_ntp_settings or get_system_global, though it never names those alternatives to sharpen the boundary.
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: an agent can infer this is the tool for reading local time/timezone. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over get_ntp_settings (the NTP configuration tool) or get_system_global, both of which are plausible confusion points in a large sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.