unifi_net_get_acl_rule_orderingRetrieve the current ordering of ACL rules for the active site so you can inspect rule priority and troubleshoot or plan firewall changes.
Returns the current ordering of ACL rules on the current site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the site scoping; it says nothing about the return shape (ordered rule IDs with positions), which is the key behavioral detail for an ordering tool.
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?
A single efficient sentence with no waste, though it is short enough that it could have front-loaded one more actionable detail (e.g., what the ordering output looks like) at no cost to brevity.
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?
With no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn what an 'ordering' response contains, and it does not say. For a simple read tool with full annotation coverage this is adequate but thin.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The phrase 'current site' usefully clarifies that site context is implicit rather than passed as an argument.
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 (returns) and resource (ordering of ACL rules) scoped to the current site. It is distinguishable from unifi_net_list_acl_rules and unifi_net_reorder_acl_rules, though the description never explicitly names those siblings.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read counterpart to unifi_net_reorder_acl_rules, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.