Skip to main content
Glama
rstierli

FortiManager MCP Server

by rstierli

create_service_tcp_udp

Create a TCP/UDP/SCTP/UDP-Lite service object with specified port ranges to use in FortiManager firewall policies.

Instructions

Create a TCP/UDP/SCTP/UDP-Lite service object.

Args: adom: ADOM name name: Service object name tcp_portrange: TCP port range (e.g., "80", "8080-8090", "80 443 8080") udp_portrange: UDP port range (e.g., "53", "500-502") sctp_portrange: SCTP port range (e.g., "3868", "2905-2907") udplite_portrange: UDP-Lite port range (e.g., "1234") comment: Optional comment

Returns: dict: Create result with keys: - status: "success" or "error" - name: Created service name - message: Status or error message

Example: >>> # Create HTTP/HTTPS service >>> result = await create_service_tcp_udp( ... adom="root", ... name="Custom-Web", ... tcp_portrange="80 443 8080", ... comment="Custom web ports" ... )

>>> # Create DNS service
>>> result = await create_service_tcp_udp(
...     adom="root",
...     name="Custom-DNS",
...     tcp_portrange="53",
...     udp_portrange="53"
... )

>>> # Create SCTP service (Diameter)
>>> result = await create_service_tcp_udp(
...     adom="root",
...     name="Diameter",
...     sctp_portrange="3868",
...     comment="Diameter protocol"
... )

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
adomYes
nameYes
tcp_portrangeNo
udp_portrangeNo
sctp_portrangeNo
udplite_portrangeNo
commentNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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 clearly describes the creation behavior, input parameters, and return format. It does not explicitly state idempotency or whether duplicates are allowed, but the examples and return schema provide sufficient context for a standard create operation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is thorough but fairly long due to extensive examples. While well-structured with a clear flow (Args, Returns, Example), some redundancy exists in examples. It is acceptable but could be more concise.

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?

Given the output schema is provided, the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter details, return format, and examples. It does not mention creation constraints like unique names or ADOM limitations, but the examples and standard service object concept imply these.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description must fully compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter (tcp_portrange, udp_portrange, etc.) with format examples like '80', '8080-8090', '80 443 8080'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 'Create a TCP/UDP/SCTP/UDP-Lite service object.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_service_icmp or create_service_group.

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?

The description includes multiple examples showing when to use TCP, UDP, SCTP, and UDP-Lite parameters. It implicitly guides the agent by demonstrating different use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for ICMP services), but the sibling context and name provide differentiation.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rstierli/fortimanager-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server