unifi_net_list_acl_rulesLists all ACL rules for the current UniFi site, with limit, offset, and filter options to paginate and narrow results.
Lists all ACL rules on the current site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Items per page, at most 200 (vendor default applies when unset) | |
| filter | No | Vendor filter expression | |
| offset | No | Number of items to skip (vendor default 0) |
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 and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds only the site scoping ('current site'); it says nothing about pagination defaults, result ordering, or whether the list is truncated at the vendor limit of 200.
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 tight sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. Its brevity is mostly appropriate, though it leaves no room for the pagination caveat an agent would want.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only place to learn what a returned ACL rule looks like or that results are paged – neither is covered. For a simple read-only list tool this is borderline adequate but leaves real gaps.
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%, so limit, filter and offset are already documented in the schema. The description does not describe pagination or filtering behavior at all, which is acceptable only because the schema carries that load.
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 and resource ('Lists all ACL rules') with a scope ('on the current site'), so an agent can tell it apart from mutations like create_acl_rule. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from unifi_net_get_acl_rule (single fetch) or the page-oriented getaclrulepage sibling.
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 versus unifi_net_get_acl_rule for a single rule, or versus reorder/get_acl_rule_ordering when ordering matters. The only implied cue is the plural 'all' in the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.