unifi_get_firewall_zoneRetrieve a UniFi firewall zone by site ID and zone ID to view its configuration details. Use it to inspect a specific zone before making network security changes.
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.
v2.15.0Input schema / properties / firewallZoneId / patternAdded value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9_-]{1,64}$"Input schema / properties / siteId / patternAdded value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9_-]{1,64}$"Output schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -falseNew value: +{}Output schema / properties / metadata / properties / configurableAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral note is that the returned fields match the list entry, which is mild value and partly redundant given the output schema exists.
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 with the operation front-loaded and the parenthetical qualification trailing it. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity leaves little room for routing or caveats.
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 read-only single-resource getter with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies what an agent needs to invoke it. A note about behavior when the ID is not found would make it complete.
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% with both required params documented, so the baseline is 3. The description only reiterates that lookup is by ID, adding no format, constraint, or error-handling detail beyond the schema.
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 and resource ('Get a firewall zone by ID') and clarifies scope with '(same fields as the list entry)'. It implicitly separates itself from unifi_list_firewall_zones by its by-ID retrieval, though it never names the sibling 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?
The 'by ID' phrasing implies you call this when you already have a zone ID rather than enumerating, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer unifi_list_firewall_zones, and no note on what happens if the ID is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.