Retrieve mapped wireless and wired data links between devices and sites, including signal, frequency, and distance details. Optionally filter to site-to-site links for network monitoring.
List data links - the wireless/wired links UISP has mapped between devices and sites, with signal/frequency/distance detail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteLinksOnly | No | Only return data links between sites (excludes device-to-device links). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it adds useful behavioral context beyond the tool name: it explains the link types (wireless/wired), scope (devices and sites), and the included detail fields (signal/frequency/distance). This makes the read-only listing behavior and returned content reasonably transparent, though pagination or output shape are not addressed.
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?
The description is a single focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs in the most useful qualifiers (wireless/wired, devices/sites, signal/frequency/distance) without redundancy.
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 simple list tool with one optional boolean parameter, the description plus schema covers the essential invocation context. It identifies what is returned and at what granularity. The only gaps are minor: no mention of pagination, authentication needs, or how this differs from the site-only sibling tool.
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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter, siteLinksOnly, already has a clear description. The tool description doesn't add parameter-level details, but it does give helpful background on what a 'data link' is, so the baseline 3 is 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('data links') with meaningful elaboration: the links are wireless/wired and include signal/frequency/distance detail. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling uisp_list_site_data_links.
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?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving mapped links between devices and sites, which gives the agent a reasonable sense of when to use it. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as uisp_list_site_data_links or uisp_get_data_link.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.