unifi_net_list_devicesList adopted UniFi devices on the current site with pagination and filtering to manage network inventory.
Adopted UniFi devices on the current site.
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is low. The description adds one useful behavioral fact: results are scoped to the current site and limited to adopted devices. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume, which matters given limit/offset parameters.
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?
Extremely short with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise: a single noun fragment that leaves the core operating information unsaid. Efficient packaging of insufficient content.
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, no annotations gap, and three undocumented parameters — an agent cannot tell how to page or filter results, or what shape of device records to expect. For a list tool with paging parameters this is materially 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters (limit, filter, offset), so the description carries the full burden and fails to meet it. It never explains filter syntax or semantics, or that limit caps at 200 and offset drives paging.
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 fragment 'Adopted UniFi devices on the current site' identifies the resource and narrows it to adopted devices on the current site, which distinguishes it from unifi_net_list_pending_devices. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it does not mark the read/list intent that the name implies, so an agent still has to infer the action.
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 when-to-use statement and no alternatives named. Given siblings such as unifi_net_get_device, unifi_net_list_pending_devices, unifi_gen_listdevices and unifi_sm_list_devices, the description gives no basis for choosing this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.