Delete a custom FortiGate service by name and VDOM; fails if a firewall policy still references it, so remove dependencies first.
Delete a custom service (fails while a policy still uses it).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Service name | |
| vdom | No | VDOM (default: FORTIGATE_VDOM, usually root) |
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. It usefully discloses a dependency failure mode (fails while a policy still uses it), but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or the effect on references. For an unannotated destructive mutation this leaves meaningful gaps.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the parenthetical carrying only genuinely load-bearing failure information. No wasted words.
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?
Covers the essential dependency caveat for a delete tool, and the schema fully documents both parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should also address irreversibility or auth requirements to be complete for a destructive operation.
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 both 'name' and 'vdom' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a custom service'), and the 'custom' qualifier helps separate this from predefined/built-in services and from the sibling delete_service_group. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling it must not be confused with.
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?
The parenthetical gives an implied precondition (a policy must not still reference the service), which is useful usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the sibling delete_service_group or delete_firewall_policy, and no guidance on confirming intent before a destructive call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.