FortiManager MCP Server

by rstierli

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

update_address_group

Modify an address group's member list and comment within a FortiManager ADOM to update firewall policy objects.

Instructions

Update an address group.

Args: adom: ADOM name name: Group name members: New member list (replaces existing) comment: New comment

Returns: dict: Update result with keys: - status: "success" or "error" - message: Status or error message

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": "update_address_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`adom`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`comment`	No
`members`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description reveals that 'members' replaces the existing list and the return format includes status/message. However, it does not clarify if other fields are additive or replaced, nor does it mention side effects or validation behavior. With no annotations, more detail is expected.

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 description is concise with a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds information, though the formatting could be tighter. It is front-loaded with the action and fits in a few lines.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple with four parameters and an output schema. The description covers action, parameters, and return value but omits whether updates are partial or full replacement (except for members). Prerequisites and error conditions are not discussed, leaving some gaps.

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 adds value for 'members' (replaces existing) and 'comment' (new comment), but 'adom' and 'name' are just restated. The descriptions are minimal but partially informative.

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 'Update an address group.' with input parameters that match the resource. Siblings include create, delete, get, and list for address groups, making the purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_address_group or delete_address_group. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., group must exist) or conditions for updates.

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

Deploy Server