Run any command on a UniFi router through SSH to retrieve diagnostics, monitor status, or troubleshoot network issues.
Execute a command directly on the router via SSH
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | Command to execute (e.g., top -n 1, info, dmesg) |
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 reveals the transport (SSH) but not that arbitrary commands can have destructive side effects (e.g., a command like 'reboot' or config-wiping commands), what privileges the SSH session holds, or how output is returned. This is a significant gap for a tool that can run anything.
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?
One sentence, zero filler — 'Execute a command directly on the router via SSH' is efficient and front-loaded with the action and target. It is genuinely concise rather than under-specified; the terseness costs behavioral depth, but that is penalized in other dimensions.
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 mechanical call is clear: one required parameter, fully documented. However, this is arguably the highest-risk tool in the catalog — raw command execution on a router — and the description omits safety context, privilege disclosure, and any note about output handling. With no annotations and no output schema, the description needed to compensate and did not.
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% with concrete examples ('top -n 1, info, dmesg'), so the schema already documents the parameter adequately. The description adds the SSH execution context but no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the 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?
The description states a specific verb (execute), a resource (the router), and a transport method (SSH). The word 'directly' signals raw shell access, which clearly separates it from the structured get_*/set_* siblings. It doesn't explicitly contrast with a named sibling, but the SSH/direct phrasing makes the distinction apparent.
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 the 50+ structured sibling tools, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. It is implied that this covers arbitrary commands not exposed by the API, but an agent is left to infer that entirely. For a raw-execution tool sitting among many high-level operations, explicit routing guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.