unifi_net_list_traffic_listsLists all traffic-matching lists configured on the current site, with pagination and filters for auditing network traffic rules.
Lists all traffic matching lists 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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description only adds the site scoping, and says nothing about pagination behavior despite three paging/filter 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?
One front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Efficient, though at this size there was room to add routing or paging information without bloat.
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 simple read-only list with fully documented optional params and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not mention that results are paginated or what a traffic matching list shape looks like, which would help an agent plan calls.
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, filter and offset each carry their own descriptions including the 200 cap and vendor defaults. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Lists all traffic matching lists') and scopes it to the current site. Distinguishes itself reasonably from the sibling get_traffic_list by being the collection form, though it never says so explicitly.
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 indication of when to use this versus unifi_net_get_traffic_list, unifi_gen_gettrafficmatchinglists, or the create/update/delete traffic-list siblings. The agent has to infer that this is the read-only enumeration path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.