FortiOS 7.6.x MCP Server

wifi_wtp_deauthorize

Deauthorize a wireless access point by providing its serial number. Optionally target a specific VDOM for removal from the FortiGate controller.

Instructions

Deauthorize (remove) a WTP (Access Point) from the controller.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "wtp_id": "<wtp_id>"
    },
    "name": "wifi_wtp_deauthorize"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wtp_id`	Yes	WTP serial number to deauthorize.
`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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a destructive action ('remove'), but does not explicitly state consequences (e.g., immediate disconnection, impact on associated clients) or required permissions (e.g., admin rights). The word 'deauthorize' hints at a change in state, but details are lacking.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence that is clear and direct. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the action.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention the expected output, the side effects (e.g., immediate removal, client disconnection), or any preconditions. While enough for basic understanding, a more complete description would include behavioral details.

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 descriptions for both parameters (wtp_id: 'WTP serial number to deauthorize'; vdom: detailed). The tool description adds no additional parameter information. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides meaning.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action: 'Deauthorize (remove) a WTP (Access Point) from the controller.' The verb 'deauthorize/remove' and resource 'WTP/Access Point' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like wifi_wtp_get (retrieve) and wifi_wtp_list (list).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or other considerations like whether the WTP must be disconnected first or if this is reversible. Among many wifi sibling tools, this guidance is missing.

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

Deploy Server