Retrieve custom firewall service port definitions from FortiGate, with optional VDOM and filter parameters.
List custom firewall services (port definitions).
| 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. Read-only is implied by 'List', but nothing is said about required permissions, VDOM defaults, pagination, result limits, or what fields are returned.
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 filler; every word earns its place. It is arguably too terse for a tool with zero annotation coverage, but the structure itself is efficient.
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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the minimum viable information is present. However, with no annotations the description omits scoping behavior (VDOM) and result-size/pagination expectations that an agent 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% with all three optional parameters (vdom, filter, format) documented with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the parenthetical defining 'services'.
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+resource ('List custom firewall services') and the parenthetical '(port definitions)' clarifies what a service is, implicitly separating it from the sibling list_service_groups. It does not explicitly name that alternative, but the scope is unambiguous.
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 prerequisites (e.g. VDOM scoping), and no routing to alternatives like list_service_groups or list_firewall_policies. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.