Check overall network health and status for UniFi infrastructure to identify issues and monitor performance.
Get overall network health and status
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_network_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a non-destructive read operation, but no detail is given about latency, side effects, prerequisites, or what the returned status contains. It is minimally transparent but not rich.
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 concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter getter and communicates the core purpose immediately.
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 description is adequate for invoking the tool since no parameters are required, but it does not clarify what 'status' includes, what the response shape looks like, or how this differs from get_network_health. With no output schema, more explanatory context would help the agent interpret the result.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter gaps. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool 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 clear verb and resource: 'Get overall network health and status' identifies the tool as a high-level read operation. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling get_network_health, so an agent may not know which one to choose.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_network_health or get_bandwidth_stats. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.