Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FortiManager MCP Server

FortiManager MCP Server

by rstierli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_device_static_routes

Retrieves a managed device's IPv4 static routes from FortiManager's device database to complete routing visibility alongside BGP and identify blackholed overlay summaries.

Instructions

Get a managed device's IPv4 static routes from FortiManager's device DB.

Complements get_device_bgp for a full routing picture: on an SD-WAN overlay the default route usually points at an SD-WAN zone and the overlay summaries are often blackholed here.

Args: device: Managed device name (e.g. "FGT-HQ") vdom: VDOM name (default: "root")

Returns: dict with keys: - device, vdom - routes: raw router/static entries - summary: condensed per-route list - route_count - error / error_code: on failure

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": {
      "device": "<device>"
    },
    "name": "get_device_static_routes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vdomNoroot
deviceYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.13.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and mostly does: it discloses that data comes from the device DB (not live state), documents the return keys including error/error_code, and adds a genuinely useful caveat that on an SD-WAN overlay the default route usually points at an SD-WAN zone and overlay summaries are often blackholed here. It omits explicit read-only/permission framing, which is minor for a 'get' tool but keeps it from 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, followed by sibling context and then a compact Args/Returns block. The Returns section largely restates the existing output schema, which is redundant, but the rest is tight and well structured.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, this covers purpose, the sibling relationship, parameter meaning, and the interpretive caveat about SD-WAN blackholing. The only real gap is the absence of annotation-equivalent safety/permission statements, which the description does not supply.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does document both parameters with an example device name ("FGT-HQ") and the vdom default of "root", but it adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema's titles and default already convey.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb, resource, protocol scope (IPv4 static routes) and source system (FortiManager device DB). It also names the sibling get_device_bgp and states the relationship, so an agent can distinguish it from the other get_device_* tools without opening a 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?

The description explicitly frames this as the complement to get_device_bgp 'for a full routing picture', which tells the agent when to pair the two calls. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. use get_device_sdwan_monitor for live overlay state), so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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