mcfortigate

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Show the active routing table

get_routing_table

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the live IPv4 routing table from a FortiGate, including connected, dynamic, and DHCP routes, to diagnose active forwarding paths and troubleshoot missing routes.

Instructions

Show the active IPv4 routing table as the appliance is forwarding it.

This is live state rather than configuration, so it includes connected routes, dynamically learned routes, and routes handed over by DHCP, none of which appear in the static route configuration.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`vdom`	No	Virtual domain to read. Defaults to the one configured for this target. The `vdom` field in the response names the one actually read.
`limit`	No	Maximum rows to return. Defaults to 200, capped at 1000.
`offset`	No	Index to start from, for paging through a large table.
`target`	No	Which FortiGate to query. Optional when only one is configured.
`protocol`	No	Filter by route type, such as static, connect, or dhcp. Matched exactly; `filtered_out` reports how many rows it removed.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: it discloses that the result is live state including connected, dynamically learned, and DHCP-delivered routes that never appear in static config, which tells the agent what to expect in the payload.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the core scope ('live state, not configuration') front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description only needs to frame what the tool returns and when it differs from config-oriented siblings, which it does. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with vdom, limit, offset, target, and protocol all documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already supplies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show the active IPv4 routing table') and pins down the scope as live forwarding state rather than config. It never names the obvious sibling list_static_routes, so the differentiation from that tool is left implicit rather than explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The contrast between 'live state' and 'configuration' implies when this tool applies versus the static-route siblings, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not guidance is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server