Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FortiManager MCP Server

FortiManager MCP Server

by rstierli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

list_firmware_templates

List firmware templates with enforced versions, schedules, and device or group assignments. Use it to review upgrade paths and template assignment within an ADOM.

Instructions

List firmware templates: enforced versions, schedule and assignment.

Verified on FortiManager 8.0.2; the template table is not in the bundled API reference, so other versions may refuse it (reported as firmware_templates_unavailable).

Args: adom: ADOM name (default: from DEFAULT_ADOM env var, or "root")

Returns: dict: status, count, templates: [{name, description, image_source, schedule {type, start_time, end_time, days}, versions [{platform, product, version, upgrade_path}], assigned_to [device or group names]}]

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_firmware_templates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
adomNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.13.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a version-compatibility risk (table absent from the bundled API reference, may fail on other versions) and names the resulting error code. It also spells out the return shape, though it never explicitly states the operation is read-only or what permissions the ADOM requires.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a risk caveat, then Args/Returns in a conventional docstring layout. Every sentence adds information; the return-value block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it is compact and does not obstruct selection.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, nothing essential is missing: purpose, the one argument and its default, the failure mode, and the response contents are all covered. The extra return-structure detail is surplus rather than necessary given the output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: adom is explained as the ADOM name with a default resolved from the DEFAULT_ADOM env var or "root". That resolves the only parameter's meaning and default behavior beyond the schema, which merely marks it nullable with a null default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

A specific verb and resource ("List firmware templates") plus the fields returned (enforced versions, schedule, assignment) make the tool's purpose unambiguous. Sibling template listers (list_cli_templates, list_sdwan_templates, list_templates) are distinguishable by resource name alone, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied through the "List" verb; there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_templates or the other template listers, nor prerequisites. The FortiManager 8.0.2 version note and the firmware_templates_unavailable error are helpful context but are compatibility guidance, not use-case 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