Lists FortiGuard Internet Service names that firewall policies can reference, helping configure policy rules; filter lookups because the full list is large.
List FortiGuard Internet Service names that policies can reference (large list; use cmdb_list with a filter for lookups).
| 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, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully warns that the result is a 'large list', which is a real performance/response-size signal. It says nothing about permissions, pagination, or what the entries look like, leaving gaps for a zero-annotation tool.
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?
One sentence with a parenthetical caveat; the resource is front-loaded and the redirect to cmdb_list follows. Every clause earns its place, with no filler.
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 read-only two-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, bulk-vs-filtered choice, and a size warning. Only permission/pagination behavior is absent, which is minor here.
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 only two parameters, so the schema already documents device_id and vdom fully. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., how vdom defaults to the device's management VDOM). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the lifting.
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 and resource ('List FortiGuard Internet Service names') plus the scope constraint ('that policies can reference'), which is meaningfully more informative than the name alone. Sibling differentiation is partial: it hints at the cmdb_list relationship but doesn't distinguish it from the many other list_* tools in the family.
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?
Explicitly routes targeted lookups to the alternative: 'use cmdb_list with a filter for lookups.' It names both the alternative and the condition that selects it. It stops short of saying when this bulk tool is preferred (e.g., enumerating all names for policy creation).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.