Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FortiManager MCP Server

FortiManager MCP Server

by rstierli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

check_device_variables

Verify a device's metadata variables against imported expected values to confirm mappings, detect mismatches, and identify unmapped or undefined ADOM variables.

Instructions

Check a device's metadata variable values against what was imported.

Use after add_model_device to confirm every meta_variables entry landed as a per-device mapping. A device can hold one mapping per scope ("global" and a VDOM such as "root"). A variable is reported as:

  • match: every mapping the device has holds the expected value

  • mismatch: a device mapping holds another value; one entry per differing scope, named in vdom

  • not_mapped: no device mapping, so templates get the ADOM default

  • undefined: no such variable exists in the ADOM

Args: adom: ADOM name device: Device name (e.g. "branch1") expected: Variable name -> expected value, e.g. the CSV row {"branch_id": "1", "hostname": "branch1"}

Returns: dict: status, ok (all match), match / mismatch[{name, expected, actual, vdom}] / not_mapped / undefined lists

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": {
      "adom": "<adom>",
      "device": "<device>",
      "expected": "<expected>"
    },
    "name": "check_device_variables"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
adomYes
deviceYes
expectedYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.13.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it defines the four result states (match, mismatch, not_mapped, undefined), explains that mismatch produces one entry per differing scope named in ``vdom``, and notes that a device can hold one mapping per scope. It does not explicitly state that the check is read-only and has no side effects, which would close the remaining gap.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core comparison purpose, then the workflow trigger, then a compact status glossary, and finally structured Args and Returns. It is appropriately sized, though the Returns block duplicates the supplied output schema and the adom gloss could be trimmed or made informative.

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 three-parameter tool with a nested ``expected`` object and an existing output schema, the definition covers the comparison semantics, the workflow step, and enough argument meaning to call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain, namely a richer explanation of adom scope and explicit read-only behavior.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and its Args section mostly does: it explains that ``device`` takes a name such as "branch1" and gives a concrete example for ``expected`` showing the variable-name-to-value shape. The ``adom`` parameter is only glossed as 'ADOM name,' which adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Check a device's metadata variable values against what was imported.' It scopes the tool by stating it compares imported values against per-device mappings, which distinguishes a verification operation from the sibling creation and listing tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an explicit precondition: 'Use after ``add_model_device`` to confirm every ``meta_variables`` entry landed as a per-device mapping.' That is clear workflow guidance, but it does not name alternatives such as list_metadata_variables or say when this tool is not the right choice.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools