Create a FortiGate address group to group multiple address objects, simplifying firewall policy management.
Create an address group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Group name | |
| vdom | No | VDOM (default: FORTIGATE_VDOM, usually root) | |
| extra | No | Extra FortiOS attributes merged into the request body as-is (hyphenated keys) | |
| comment | No | Comment | |
| members | Yes | Member address names |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the name. It does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, which permissions are needed, or how the VDOM parameter affects behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with no filler, which is appropriately front-loaded, but the extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate: it omits required-parameter expectations, VDOM/default behavior, and the arbitrary 'extra' attribute merging. The schema covers parameters, but nothing covers the tool's behavioral contract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (name, vdom, extra, comment, members) is already documented in the schema; the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (Create) and resource (address group), so an agent immediately knows the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from nearby siblings such as create_address, create_service_group, or update_address_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other create/update tools, no prerequisites, and no note about required inputs. The agent must infer everything from the schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.