unifi_net_list_dpi_applicationsList DPI applications from the UniFi Network API at console level, with limit, offset, and filter options; no site ID required.
DPI applications known to 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety behavior needs no restating. The description does contribute one non-obvious behavioral fact, that the call is console-level and requires no siteId, but says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or whether this is a static reference catalog.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the useful scope qualifier is placed immediately after the resource. It is a noun fragment rather than a full statement of action, which slightly weakens front-loading of intent.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the agent gets no picture of what a DPI application record contains or how to page/filter through the collection. The annotations cover safety but the description leaves the practical usage of limit/filter/offset entirely unexplored.
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% and three parameters (limit, filter, offset) are completely undocumented. The description adds only the implicit hint that no siteId parameter exists; it says nothing about the paging parameters, the 200 max limit, or what 'filter' accepts, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 name and title already say 'List DPI applications'; the description restates the resource as 'DPI applications known to the UniFi Network API' without an explicit verb such as list/retrieve. It does add scope ('console-level, no siteId required'), which helps separate it from site-scoped list tools, but it never explicitly contrasts with the closely named sibling unifi_net_list_dpi_application_categories.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative to pick. The near-identical siblings (unifi_net_list_dpi_application_categories, unifi_gen_getdpiapplications) go unmentioned, leaving the agent to infer the difference from names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.