unifi_net_list_radius_profilesLists RADIUS profiles configured on the current UniFi site, with optional filtering, pagination, and result limits for reviewing authentication settings.
RADIUS profiles configured 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping detail that results are limited to the current site, but it does not describe pagination or filtering behavior.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though the content is too thin to fully specify behavior.
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 list tool with three parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It says what the resource is but does not explain filtering, pagination, or expected return structure, which an agent needs to invoke it reliably.
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 the description provides no explanation of limit, filter, or offset. With three undocumented parameters and no compensating information in the description, an agent gets almost no semantic guidance beyond parameter names.
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 description identifies the resource (RADIUS profiles) and scope (configured on the current site), which is clear enough for an agent to know what it returns. However, it does not explicitly use a listing verb or differentiate itself from related list/get tools, leaving sibling distinction to the tool name.
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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool to choose instead. The only implied usage is that it lists RADIUS profiles for the current site.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.