unifi_net_get_network_referencesRetrieve references to a specific network from other objects to identify dependencies and usage across your UniFi configuration.
References to this network from other objects.
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only the vague hint 'from other objects' and says nothing about what is returned, whether the list can be empty, or what scopes are searched — minimal value beyond structured data.
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?
It is short, but it is a sentence fragment that is under-specified rather than economical — brevity here costs clarity instead of adding it.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should describe the shape of returned references; it does not. Combined with the undocumented `id` parameter and no differentiation from the duplicated unifi_gen_* sibling, an agent cannot confidently invoke this correctly.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and one required parameter, the description must explain that `id` is the network id. It never mentions the parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess whether it is a network id, a reference id, or a site id.
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 'References to this network from other objects' is a noun phrase that essentially restates the title 'Get network references' rather than naming a verb and resource. It never explains what a 'reference' is (firewall rule, DNS policy, VPN, etc.) or how the result differs from siblings like unifi_gen_getnetworkreferences.
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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives — no mention of a prerequisite lookup of a network id, no note that unifi_gen_getnetworkreferences appears to be the equivalent generated variant. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.