unifi_net_get_firewall_policyRetrieves detailed information for a single UniFi firewall policy by its ID, so you can inspect rules and settings for troubleshooting or auditing.
Detail for one firewall policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what a missing id returns, whether lookup is by UUID or name, or any error behavior.
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?
Brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness: one four-word fragment with no front-loaded verb or object contract. Nothing is wasted, but almost nothing is conveyed.
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 single-resource lookup with one undocumented required parameter and no output schema, the description should at least say what identifier form is expected and what the response contains. Annotations cover read safety, but the calling contract remains incomplete.
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 single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden of clarifying whether it is a UUID, a numeric index, or a policy name — and it says nothing. This is a clear gap the description fails to compensate for.
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 'Detail for one firewall policy' is a noun fragment that essentially restates the name and title, with no verb. The only added information is 'one', which weakly implies a single-item fetch versus the sibling list_firewall_policies, but the agent gets that from the name anyway.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer unifi_net_list_firewall_policies, unifi_gen_getfirewallpolicy, or unifi_raw_request, and no prerequisite notes. The only routing signal is implicit in the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.