Lists devices detected by FortiGate device inventory, returning IP, MAC, hostname, OS, and interface details for a specified firewall and optional VDOM.
List devices seen by the device inventory (monitor/user/device/query): IP, MAC, hostname, OS, interface.
| 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. It implies a read-only listing and describes returned fields, but does not disclose permissions, pagination, rate limits, or whether results are scoped by device_id/vdom.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, scope, and returned fields compactly.
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 list tool, the description gives the essential scope and returned fields. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves gaps around pagination, permissions, and vdom behavior that an agent might need.
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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline 3.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List devices seen by the device inventory,' and names the fields returned (IP, MAC, hostname, OS, interface). It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as list_devices or list_wifi_clients, but the inventory-scoped wording is clear.
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 states what the tool lists but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, or which sibling tools are alternatives. An agent must infer its role relative to tools like list_devices, list_arp_table, or list_wifi_clients.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.