Gets FortiGate interface configuration (IP, mode, role, alias, allowaccess) by VDOM, with optional filters and field selection.
List interface configuration (IP, mode, role, alias, allowaccess).
| 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 burden. 'List' implies read-only, but there is no statement about permissions, whether results are paginated, or the default VDOM behavior, and no output schema exists to fill the 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 the verb, resource, and return fields, with zero filler.
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?
Adequate for a read-only list tool with fully documented params and no output schema, but it omits anything about result volume, pagination, or how filter/format interact, which an agent invoking this against a firewall would benefit from.
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 vdom, filter, and format are already documented in the schema. The description's field list loosely maps to what format can select but adds no syntax beyond what the schema provides. 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 (interface configuration) plus the fields returned. It is distinguishable from get_interface/update_interface by the enumeration verb, though it does not explicitly contrast with the singular get_interface sibling.
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, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent is left to infer that this is for browsing all interfaces rather than fetching one via get_interface.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.