Retrieve the full configuration of a FortiGate interface by name, optionally within a VDOM, to audit or troubleshoot network settings.
Get one interface's full configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Interface name, e.g. port1 | |
| 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 disclosure burden. 'Get' implies read-only, but it says nothing about authentication needs, required permissions, pagination, or what 'full configuration' actually includes.
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?
A single tight sentence with the key scope qualifier ('one interface's full configuration') front-loaded. No wasted words, though there is little content to structure.
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 config-retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to tell the agent what a caller receives or how it differs from get_interface_status. More detail on the returned configuration would be needed here.
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% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents 'name' (with the port1 example) and 'vdom' (with a default). The description adds nothing beyond that baseline.
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 ('Get') and resource ('one interface's full configuration'), making it clear this is a single-object read rather than a list. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling get_interface_status, so it falls short of the top tier.
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?
No guidance on when to choose this over list_interfaces (enumerate all) or get_interface_status (status vs. full config), nor any prerequisite or VDOM context advice. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.