FortiOS 7.6.x MCP Server

wifi_wtp_profile_get

Retrieve configuration for a specific Wireless Termination Point (WTP) profile by name. Useful for auditing or verifying AP settings in a FortiGate environment.

Instructions

Get a specific AP (WTP) profile configuration.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "wifi_wtp_profile_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	WTP profile name.
`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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states 'Get' implying read-only, but no disclosure of idempotency, auth needs, or side effects. Minimal transparency.

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, clear and front-loaded. No unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple get operation with output schema and full parameter coverage, description is sufficient. Could add that it retrieves by name, but not necessary. Good completeness given context.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves a specific AP (WTP) profile configuration, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like wifi_wtp_profile_list (list) and wifi_wtp_get (get WTP, not profile).

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 vs alternatives. No explicit when-not or context for selection. Assumes agent knows to use for single profile retrieval.

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

Deploy Server