Retrieve wireless controller settings for a FortiGate device, including country, duplicate SSID handling, and fake SSID action. Use it to verify Wi-Fi configuration and troubleshoot SSID behavior.
Show wireless controller settings (country, duplicate SSID handling, fake SSID action).
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet "Show" is the only signal that this is a read-only operation. Nothing is said about required device permissions, whether the vdom argument defaults to the management VDOM, or what happens if the device lacks a wireless controller.
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 well-formed sentence with the resource and the returned settings front-loaded; no filler, no hedging, nothing wasted. It is short precisely because it says little, but nothing in it is redundant.
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, low-complexity read, but with no annotations and no output schema the description must disclose that this is a non-mutating read and roughly what a result looks like. It omits both, and says nothing about the vdom scoping parameter that affects which settings are returned.
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), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for either parameter — it does not explain the vdom default of null or how device_id is resolved.
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 a precise resource ("wireless controller settings"), and the parenthetical enumerates the settings returned (country, duplicate SSID handling, fake SSID action). It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_system_global, get_dns_settings, or list_wireless_ssids, so the agent gets no explicit 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?
The description contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With dozens of get_*/list_* siblings in this server, the absence of any routing hint leaves the agent to infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.