Lists FortiGate wireless SSIDs with security mode, VLAN, broadcast, and schedule details while redacting passphrases. Inspect wireless-controller VAP configuration by device and optional VDOM.
List SSIDs (wireless-controller/vap): security mode, VLAN, broadcast, schedule (passphrases 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 disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context by naming the returned fields and noting that passphrases are redacted, which signals safe read behavior. It stops short of describing permissions, pagination, or scope 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action comes first, followed by the useful output-field summary and redaction note.
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 low-complexity read-only list tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names what is listed and summarizes the returned fields. A brief note on vdom scoping or pagination would make it fully complete.
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 optional vdom) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about these parameters, which matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.
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 SSIDs') and scopes it to wireless-controller/vap. It also names the fields returned, so an agent can tell it is a configuration-listing tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_ap_profiles or get_wifi_controller_settings.
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 usage is implied by the name and the listed output fields: this is the tool for viewing SSID configuration. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling Wi-Fi tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.