Retrieve firewall address groups and their members from FortiGate, with optional VDOM, filter, and field formatting.
List firewall address groups and their members.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vdom | No | VDOM (default: FORTIGATE_VDOM, usually root) | |
| filter | No | FortiOS filter expression, e.g. name=@k3s (contains) or action==accept | |
| format | No | Only return these fields, '|'-separated, e.g. policyid|name|action |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses little beyond the basic action. It does note that members are included in the output, which is useful, but omits read-only safety implications, permission requirements, default VDOM handling, and pagination/return-format 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the resource and the notable inclusion of member data.
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 low-complexity list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. It lacks usage routing, behavioral context (e.g., default VDOM is only in the schema), and any output-shape hints, leaving clear gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the environment.
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 the schema already documents vdom, filter, and format in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 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?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('firewall address groups') and adds scope ('their members'), which distinguishes it from list_addresses and list_service_groups. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling list tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The agent is left to infer that this is the appropriate tool for listing address groups, with no mention of when to prefer get_address_group or list_addresses instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.