Retrieve one-time firewall schedules for a FortiGate device, including start and end datetimes, to verify time-bound policies and audit schedule configuration.
List one-time firewall schedules (start/end datetime).
| 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 operation and mentions returned datetime fields, but says nothing about device scoping, permissions, pagination, or what happens with the optional vdom parameter.
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 that identifies the resource and its key characteristics with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
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. However, without annotations it could disclose more about scope (per-device, optional vdom behavior) and the read-only nature of the operation, leaving some gaps.
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 (device_id and vdom) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it only references the schedule's datetime content, not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles parameter documentation.
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 one-time firewall schedules) and adds distinguishing detail with start/end datetime. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_recurring_schedules via 'one-time', but does not explicitly name that alternative.
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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not mention the recurring-schedule sibling as an alternative. An agent must infer usage purely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.