Lists SNMP v1/v2c communities and associated hosts for a FortiGate device, with community strings redacted, so you can audit SNMP access without exposing secrets.
List SNMP v1/v2c communities and their hosts (community strings 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The redaction of community strings is a genuinely useful disclosure (an agent learns it cannot retrieve credentials), and 'List' implies read-only, but permission requirements, output shape beyond 'communities and their hosts', and pagination/emptiness behavior are unstated.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero padding; the redaction caveat is attached inline where it matters.
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 no output schema, it covers the essentials (what is listed, what is withheld). It leaves gaps on device/vdom scoping semantics and on whether results are per-device or global, which affects call correctness.
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 only two parameters (device_id, vdom), so the schema already documents both. The description adds nothing about vdom scoping or the effect of omitting it, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'List SNMP v1/v2c communities and their hosts', plus a scope detail (strings redacted). It is distinguishable from the nearby get_snmp_sysinfo sibling, though the description never explicitly contrasts with it.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. device must be onboarded), and no mention of alternatives such as get_snmp_sysinfo for system-level SNMP data. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.