Retrieve policy-based routes from a FortiGate device, optionally scoped to a VDOM, to inspect routing policy configuration.
List policy-based routes (router/policy).
| 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, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the verb. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether results are per-VDOM scoped, whether a device connection must be established first, or how large result sets are returned. Only the word 'List' hints at a safe read.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being deliberately tight.
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?
A simple two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, so the bar is modest. Still, with no annotations, the description should say more about scope (per-VDOM? per-device?) and the fact that this returns policy-route configuration rather than live routes.
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%: device_id is documented as the FortiGate device identifier and vdom as Virtual Domain. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the work, not the prose.
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 policy-based routes', with the FortiOS config path '(router/policy)' as clarification. It is distinguishable by name from siblings like list_static_routes or get_routing_table, but the description never explicitly contrasts with those routing siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over list_static_routes, get_routing_table, or lookup_route, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer from the name alone that this returns policy-route configuration rather than the active routing table.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.