List recent network alarms and threats to identify security issues on your UniFi network. Optionally include archived alarms and adjust the result limit.
List recent network alarms and threats
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of alarms to return (default: 10) | |
| archived | No | Whether to include archived alarms (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists recent alarms and threats, but does not clarify default behavior around 'archived', whether threats are separate from alarms, how results are ordered, or what the response looks like.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to conveying the core operation.
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?
The tool has only two optional parameters, no nested objects, and full schema coverage, so it is quite callable as-is. However, with no output schema and no usage guidance, an agent may still lack clarity on expected return shape or when to choose this tool over similar network-status siblings.
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?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters ('limit' and 'archived'), covering 100% of them. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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?
The description clearly identifies the operation with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent network alarms and threats'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_events or get_deep_dive, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_events, get_deep_dive, or get_network_health. It also gives no exclusions or conditions that would help an agent decide between related monitoring tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.