Skip to main content
Glama
FortiManager MCP Server

FortiManager MCP Server

by rstierli

get_cli_template

Retrieve a CLI template and its script by ADOM and name, with secrets redacted so you can inspect what it pushes without exposing sensitive values.

Instructions

Read a CLI template, with its script.

get_cli_template_group lists a group's members only; this returns what a member pushes. Secrets in the script are redacted, so the result shows that a template sets a password, not the value: set <secret> values and ENC blobs, SNMP community names, secret-named Jinja {% set %} assignments, and secret-keyed string literals inside Jinja tags. A bare variable reference (set psksecret {{ psk }}, $(psk)) is kept, since it names where the value comes from. Any other value is masked up to the next CLI line, and if a Jinja template could compute a secret from its own constants, those constants are masked too. A template whose type is "cli" is read as plain CLI; any other type as Jinja.

Args: adom: ADOM name name: CLI template name (see list_cli_templates)

Returns: dict: cli_template with name, type, description, variables, script

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>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_cli_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
adomYes
nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.13.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses that secrets are redacted, enumerates exactly what gets masked (set <secret> values, ENC blobs, SNMP communities, secret-named Jinja {% set %} assignments, secret-keyed literals, computable constants), and explains what is deliberately preserved. It omits permission/authentication requirements and error behavior for a missing template, keeping it below a 5.

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 purpose and sibling distinction are front-loaded, which is good, but the redaction paragraph is dense and runs long with parenthetical examples. Most of it is substantive rather than filler, yet it could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the returned dict fields. For a two-parameter read tool the main gaps are permission requirements and failure modes, which are minor relative to the detailed redaction semantics provided.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only offers tautologies ('adom: ADOM name') and does not explain what an ADOM is or how to obtain one. The `name` argument does get a useful pointer to `list_cli_templates`, which is the one genuine addition.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a CLI template, with its script') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling `get_cli_template_group`, clarifying that this returns a member's content rather than a group listing. An agent can distinguish it from neighbors without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear routing context: use `get_cli_template_group` to list members, this tool to read what a member pushes, and `list_cli_templates` to discover the `name` argument. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites (e.g., ADOM selection requirements).

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