Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FortiManager MCP Server

FortiManager MCP Server

by rstierli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_package_install_status

Check which policy package is assigned to each device and whether it is installed, modified, or out of sync in FortiManager.

Instructions

Show which policy package is assigned to each device and whether it is installed.

The same status the GUI shows per device in Policy & Objects: a package is "installed" when the device runs it, "modified" when the package changed since the last install, and "out of sync" when the device and FortiManager disagree. Use check_device_policy_sync to see which policies differ.

Args: adom: ADOM name device: Only this device (optional)

Returns: dict: status, count, packages: [{"device", "vdom", "package", "install_status"}]

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": "get_package_install_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
adomYes
deviceNo

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 does so well for the status vocabulary: it defines 'installed', 'modified', and 'out of sync' in terms of device behavior and FortiManager disagreement. It does not discuss permissions, pagination, or read-only guarantees, but for a status-inspection tool the semantic definitions are the main behavioral risk.

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?

The lead sentence is front-loaded with purpose and scope, and the status definitions are the highest-value content. The 'Returns' block partially duplicates the existing output schema, which is mild waste, though the Args block is appropriately terse.

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 an output schema exists and only two simple parameters, the description covers what an agent needs: what is returned conceptually, what the status values mean, and where to go for policy diffs. The main residual gap is the lack of any ADOM value guidance for a required parameter.

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, and it only minimally does: 'adom: ADOM name' and 'device: Only this device (optional)'. The device entry usefully conveys filter semantics and optionality, but the ADOM parameter gets no format, default, or how-to-discover guidance despite being required.

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: it shows which policy package is assigned to each device and whether it is installed. It also implicitly scopes itself apart from check_device_policy_sync, which is named for the policy-diff view rather than the assignment/install view.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to check_device_policy_sync when the question is which policies differ, which is a real alternative with a stated condition. There is no explicit 'do not use this for X' exclusion (e.g., for triggering installs), so it falls short of a full when/when-not pair.

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