Retrieve configured static routes from a FortiGate firewall, optionally scoped by VDOM or filtered by FortiOS expressions, to inspect routing table entries.
List configured static routes.
| 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 a read operation, but there's no statement about permissions required, pagination, return format, or scope defaults (the vdom default is only in the schema). The description adds nothing beyond the tautological verb-resource restatement.
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 zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't state the scope (vdom default), does not explain the filter parameter behavior, and does not describe the response shape. An agent cannot confidently call this without checking the schema and making assumptions about behavior.
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 with examples. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
State a specific verb and resource: 'Configured static routes' is clearly what's listed. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_routing_table and create_static_route by naming the static route resource, but doesn't clarify the relationship to the existing routing table tool.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_routing_table and list_port_forwards, the agent must infer that 'static routes' are distinct configured entries versus the active routing table. No when-to-use or exclusion conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.