unifi_net_list_lagsRetrieve Link Aggregation Groups configured on the current UniFi site, with optional pagination and filtering for inspection.
Link Aggregation Groups (LAGs) configured 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The only added behavior is the implicit 'current site' scoping; nothing is said about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens when no LAGs exist.
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 and front-loaded, but it is a sentence fragment without a verb rather than a tight description. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than from editing out waste.
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 paginated list tool with no output schema, the description should say what a LAG record contains or at least how paging behaves. Neither is present, and the sibling relationship to get_lag is left unresolved.
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%: limit, offset and filter are fully documented in the schema including defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names the resource (LAGs) and its scope ('configured on the current site'), which is slightly more than the title 'List LAGs'. But it never states a verb and does not distinguish itself from unifi_net_get_lag (singular fetch) or unifi_net_list_mclag_domains, both of which sit right beside it.
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 versus unifi_net_get_lag for a single LAG or unifi_net_list_mclag_domains for MC-LAG domains. An agent must infer the difference from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.