unifi_sm_get_sdwan_config_statusFetch the status of a specific SD-WAN configuration by ID to check deployment health and diagnose connectivity issues.
Status of a SD-WAN configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the word "status", such as what status is returned, whether it is live or desired configuration state, or any auth/call constraints.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than useful conciseness. It is a sentence fragment and does not front-load any actionable context.
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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is still too thin. It leaves unclear what status information is returned and how the configuration id is obtained, so an agent must infer too much.
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%, so the description must explain the single required `id` parameter. It only implies the id refers to a SD-WAN configuration and gives no format, source, or example, leaving the parameter under-specified.
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 "Status of a SD-WAN configuration" essentially restates the title without a clear verb or scope. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as unifi_sm_get_sdwan_config, unifi_sm_list_sdwan_configs, or unifi_gen_getsdwanconfigstatus.
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 versus alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling routing are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.