FortiOS 7.6.x MCP Server

log_fortianalyzer_setting_update

Update FortiAnalyzer logging settings: enable/disable, set server IP/FQDN, encryption algorithm, and target VDOM.

Instructions

Update FortiAnalyzer logging settings.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "log_fortianalyzer_setting_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No	Enable or disable: enable or disable.
`server`	No	FortiAnalyzer IP/FQDN.
`enc_algorithm`	No	Encryption algorithm: default, high, low, disable.
`vdom`	No	Target VDOM name. Defaults to the server default VDOM. Use '*' for all VDOMs (super-admin required).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only notes 'Update' (implying mutation) but fails to mention idempotency, side effects, required permissions, or what happens if parameters are omitted (e.g., no change).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no redundancy. While concise, it omits useful detail that could be added without becoming verbose (e.g., listing key parameters).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values, but it lacks information on behavior when no parameters are provided (all optional), default VDOM handling (mentioned in schema but not in description), and any prerequisites or side effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with adequate descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Enable or disable' for status, 'FortiAnalyzer IP/FQDN' for server). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'FortiAnalyzer logging settings', distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'log_fortianalyzer_setting_get' which retrieves settings. However, it could be more specific about which settings (e.g., server, encryption) as listed in the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other logging tools (e.g., log_syslogd_get, log_app_ctrl). The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as requirement for FortiAnalyzer connectivity or admin permissions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server