Retrieve and filter FortiGate firewall address objects by VDOM, FortiOS expression, or selected fields to inspect or audit configured network objects.
List firewall address objects.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a non-destructive read, but the description says nothing about pagination, result limits, VDOM scoping behavior, or required permissions. For a FortiOS list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.
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 is efficient, though arguably so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than being admirably concise.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and three query parameters, the description should explain what is returned and how filter/format behave. As written, an agent knows the tool lists address objects but not the shape or scope of results.
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%, and the schema documents all three parameters (vdom, filter, format) with examples. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (firewall address objects), which is clear enough to distinguish it from the many other list_* tools in the environment. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as get_address or list_address_groups, which share the same resource domain.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus get_address (single object), list_address_groups, or the list_* siblings generally. No prerequisites, no conditions, no alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.