Lists FortiSwitch units managed by the switch controller for a FortiGate device, so you can inspect switch inventory and controller-managed switch details via FortiOS REST API.
List FortiSwitch units managed by the switch controller (monitor/switch-controller/managed-switch).
| 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 full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the endpoint path hints at a monitor query, but nothing is said about pagination, whether the FortiGate must be online, permissions, or failure behavior for an unmanaged device.
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 front-loaded sentence with the resource scope first and the underlying endpoint in parentheses. No filler, nothing truncated in a way that loses meaning.
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 two-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies the resource and data source. The only meaningful gap is which device-level context is required before calling, which is left implicit.
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% (both 'vdom' and 'device_id' are documented in the schema), so the schema already does the parameter work. The description adds no extra meaning such as whether vdom defaults to the device's management VDOM, so the baseline 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?
States a precise verb and resource (list FortiSwitch units managed by the switch controller) and even names the underlying monitor endpoint, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like list_switch_port_stats or list_managed_aps, though the resource name itself is distinct.
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 only restates what the tool does; it gives no conditions for choosing it over list_switch_port_stats, list_managed_aps, or list_devices, and no prerequisites (e.g., the device must be reachable/managed). An agent must infer all usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.