Retrieve the active IPv4 routing table from a FortiGate firewall to inspect connected, static, DHCP-learned, and dynamic routes; optionally filter by VDOM.
Active IPv4 routing table (connected, static, DHCP-learned and dynamic routes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 burden. It discloses that the output reflects the live/active table and covers multiple route-source categories (connected, static, DHCP-learned, dynamic), which adds real behavioral context about what is returned. It falls short of stating whether the query is read-only (implied by 'get', but not explicit), whether it requires elevated permissions, or whether it is scoped per-VDOM.
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, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool returns. There is no filler, and the parenthetical scope qualifier is placed where it is most useful.
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 simple read-only retrieval with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate: it states scope and content. However, it omits any mention of VDOM scoping in prose, has no usage guidance, and provides no return-shape expectations, leaving marginal gaps an agent might need.
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%: the single 'vdom' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific resource (the active IPv4 routing table) and enumerates the route types it contains, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_static_routes. It's clear what the tool retrieves, though the verb 'get' is implied rather than stated.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is preferred over list_static_routes, get_arp_table, or get_interface_status for a given diagnostic task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.