Lists IPsec phase-1 interfaces for a FortiGate device, including type, remote gateway, IKE version, proposals, and peer settings with PSKs redacted. Use it to review VPN configuration details.
List IPsec phase-1 interfaces: type, remote gateway, IKE version, proposals, peer settings (PSKs redacted).
| 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, the description carries the full burden; it discloses one important behavior ('PSKs redacted'), which is real value beyond structured fields. But it says nothing about permissions, pagination, or whether the list is scoped to a single device/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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and then the field list. Nothing redundant, and the security caveat is parenthetical rather than buried.
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?
No output schema exists, so the field enumeration ('type, remote gateway, IKE version, proposals, peer settings') usefully describes the return shape for a simple two-parameter list tool. Only the redaction/scope behavior is thin.
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 and vdom both documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning — not even that results are limited to the given device.
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 IPsec phase-1 interfaces') and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_ipsec_phase2 and list_ipsec_tunnels. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.
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 by the 'List' verb — read-only retrieval of phase-1 config. It never says when to prefer this over list_ipsec_phase2, list_ipsec_tunnels, or get_bgp_config-style detail tools, and gives no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.