unifi_net_list_switch_stacksLists switch stacks configured on the current site, with filtering and pagination controls for reviewing network stack topology.
Switch stacks 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the site-scoping fact ('current site'); it says nothing about pagination behavior, empty-result behavior, or result ordering, which is the remaining behavioral burden not covered by annotations.
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 fragment with zero waste and the scope constraint present. It is efficient, though its terseness is under-specification rather than precision.
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 endpoint with three optional paging/filter parameters, no output schema, and no annotation detail on returns, the description should explain paging semantics or the filter expression format an agent must supply. Neither is present, leaving the agent to guess how to page through stacks.
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%, so limit, offset and filter are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about paging defaults or the 'vendor filter expression' syntax, so the baseline 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 'Switch stacks configured on the current site' identifies the resource and the scope, so an agent can infer a listing operation. But it omits the verb and never distinguishes itself from the sibling unifi_net_get_switch_stack, which returns a single stack. Purpose is recognizable but not sharp.
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 guidance at all: nothing says to call this to discover stack IDs before calling unifi_net_get_switch_stack, and no exclusions or alternatives are named. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.