unifi_net_list_countriesLists countries available in the UniFi Network API at console level, so you can retrieve valid country codes without specifying a site ID. Supports filtering and pagination.
List of countries available in the UniFi Network API (console-level, no siteId required).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| filter | No | ||
| offset | No |
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 structurally. The description adds the one genuinely new behavioral fact — that it is console-level and needs no siteId. It says nothing about pagination despite limit/offset being exposed, which is a meaningful omission for a list endpoint.
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 the scope qualifier folded into a parenthetical rather than a trailing paragraph. Nothing is wasted, though there is very little content to structure.
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, three undocumented parameters, no statement of what a 'country' record contains (code? name? id?) and no pagination semantics. For a paginated list endpoint with zero parameter documentation, the description leaves an agent guessing on nearly every call decision.
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 0% for all three parameters (limit, filter, offset), and the description does not compensate at all — it never explains what 'filter' matches on, what the page size default is, or how offset interacts with limit. Below the 3 baseline because low schema coverage puts the burden on the description and it is not met.
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 ('List of countries') and adds a useful scope qualifier: console-level, no siteId required. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling unifi_gen_getcountries, which an agent could equally well pick.
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?
The parenthetical implies when the tool applies (console-scoped calls where no site is selected), but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never mentions the overlapping getcountries sibling as an alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.