Retrieve a specific firewall zone's configuration by providing the site ID and firewall zone ID. Access full details for UniFi firewall management.
Get a firewall zone by ID (same fields as the list entry).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteId | Yes | Site ID | |
| firewallZoneId | Yes | Firewall zone ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| networkIds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by stating 'same fields as the list entry', informing the agent about output consistency. No additional behavioral details needed for a simple read operation.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no superfluous information. It is optimally concise.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could briefly mention that the output matches list entries, which it does. No major 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (Site ID, Firewall zone ID). The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is adequate for a simple get-by-ID tool.
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 clearly states the action (Get), resource (firewall zone), and method (by ID). It also differentiates from list tools by noting 'same fields as the list entry', making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied: use when you need a single zone by ID, while list tools for all zones. However, no explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.