unifi_net_list_wifiRetrieve and filter WLAN broadcasts from a UniFi network, using limit and offset to page through wireless network configurations for inspection.
WLAN broadcasts.
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or what a WLAN broadcast record represents.
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 fragment is short, but it is under-specified rather than economical. It lacks a verb, scope, and any structural cues that would help an agent front-load the tool's purpose.
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 pagination and filtering parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition leaves out purpose scope, filtering behavior, and result shape. The annotations cover safety, but the description does not compensate for the schema gaps.
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?
All three parameters (limit, filter, offset) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It provides no help on pagination limits, filter syntax, or offset behavior.
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 is a two-word noun phrase, 'WLAN broadcasts,' that essentially restates the resource in the title without stating the list operation or scope. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as unifi_net_get_wifi or unifi_gen_getwifibroadcastpage.
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 to choose for single Wi-Fi lookups, page views, or management operations. The agent must infer everything from the name and title.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.