Retrieve current WiFi network configurations, including SSIDs and security settings, from a UniFi Network Controller. Use this to audit or troubleshoot wireless network setup.
Get WiFi network configurations (SSIDs, security, etc.)
| 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool gets configurations, implying a read operation, but does not disclose return format, potential side effects, permission requirements, or any edge cases. The vague 'etc.' adds no behavioral clarity.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose, and no unnecessary filler is present.
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 zero-parameter tool the description is minimally adequate: the agent can invoke it without arguments and expect WiFi configuration data. However, there is no output schema and the description only vaguely hints at the return content with 'etc.', leaving the exact response structure unclear.
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 the schema confirms this, so there is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 applies; the description's mention of SSIDs and security gives helpful context about what the returned configuration covers, though it doesn't add parameter-specific detail.
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 tool as retrieving WiFi network configurations and gives concrete examples such as SSIDs and security settings. It distinguishes itself from the broader sibling 'get_network_config' through the specific 'WiFi' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.
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 like get_network_status or get_network_config. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.