unifi_net_create_vouchersGenerates one or more UniFi hotspot vouchers from count, name, and duration, with dry-run previews and explicit confirmation before applying.
Generates one or more hotspot vouchers. Body shape per UniFi docs (count, name, duration, …).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Voucher generation payload | |
| confirm | No | "YES" to apply; without it the tool returns a preview. | |
| dry_run | No | true: preview only, nothing is sent. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds almost nothing: it defers payload semantics to "UniFi docs" rather than stating what a voucher contains or what the two-step confirm/preview behavior means in practice.
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?
Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The brevity is appropriate, though the second sentence spends words deferring to an external reference.
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 destructive, non-idempotent batch-create with no output schema, the description never says what comes back (voucher codes? ids?) or how the confirm/preview interaction works. Those omissions matter here more than for a read 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%, so count/name/duration are already documented and confirm/dry_run are self-describing. Naming the body fields (count, name, duration) adds marginal value, but the pointer to external "UniFi docs" is not actionable on its own.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ("Generates ... hotspot vouchers") and clarifies batch semantics with "one or more." It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling unifi_gen_createvouchers that also appears in the sibling list.
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 statement of when to use this versus unifi_gen_createvouchers, and no mention of the two-phase preview flow implied by the confirm/dry_run params. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.