Retrieve LLDP neighbor details for a FortiGate device, including switch ports and neighbor system names, to map network topology and verify connected devices.
Show LLDP neighbors (switch ports, neighbor system names).
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not confirm that, state permission or reachability requirements, clarify vdom scope, or describe any output/pagination behavior.
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 text. The parenthetical is compact and adds useful detail about what the neighbor listing contains.
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 and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It does not explain when the tool is appropriate, whether the device must be reachable, or how vdom scoping affects results.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both device_id and vdom. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description uses a specific resource, 'LLDP neighbors,' and parenthetically clarifies that results include switch ports and neighbor system names. This is clear enough to understand the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from nearby inventory/diagnostic siblings such as list_managed_switches or list_switch_port_stats.
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 says only what the tool shows. It gives no guidance on when to use it versus related tools like list_managed_switches, list_interface_counters, or list_arp_table, and it does not mention prerequisites such as device reachability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.