unifi_get_traffic_matching_listRetrieve a specific traffic matching list by ID for a UniFi Network site, including its full items array.
Get a specific traffic matching list by ID (full items array).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteId | Yes | Site ID | |
| trafficMatchingListId | Yes | Traffic matching list ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| items | No | ||
| metadata | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.15.0Input schema / properties / siteId / patternAdded value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9_-]{1,64}$"Input schema / properties / trafficMatchingListId / patternAdded value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9_-]{1,64}$"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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The parenthetical '(full items array)' adds useful context about response shape distinguish it from the list endpoint's summaries, but no other behavioral traits are disclosed; with annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.
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 tight sentence with no filler, and the retrieval key is front-loaded. Efficient and appropriately sized.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, annotations cover safety, and both required parameters are documented. The definition is nearly complete, only lacking explicit routing guidance versus the list sibling.
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% - both siteId and trafficMatchingListId are documented in the schema with patterns. The description only repeats that retrieval is by ID and adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('Get'), resource ('traffic matching list'), and retrieval key ('by ID'), which cleanly separates it from unifi_list_traffic_matching_lists. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 by 'by ID' - fetch one list when you have its identifier versus enumerating via the list sibling. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.