talk_getFetch specific UniFi Talk system data by calling any read-only endpoint—call logs, users, devices, or service health—with optional parameters for tailored retrieval.
Call any read-only Talk endpoint by id. See talk_list_endpoints for descriptions and parameters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| endpoint | Yes | ||
| path_params | No | Values for {placeholders} in the endpoint path, e.g. {"uuid": "..."} |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description restates the read-only nature already captured by readOnlyHint: true, but adds no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, pagination, error behavior, or response shape. With the annotation covering the safety profile, the description contributes little beyond redundant restatement.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler: the first defines the operation, and the second points to the right reference resource. It is appropriately front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
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?
The description offloads endpoint-specific details to talk_list_endpoints, which is reasonable for a generic read-only dispatcher. However, with no output schema and no mention of response variability, errors, or how query parameters are used, the description is minimally sufficient rather than complete on its own.
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 only 33%, and the description does not explain query or endpoint parameters directly. It points to talk_list_endpoints for descriptions and parameters, but this is an external reference rather than added semantic meaning for this tool's own parameters. Only path_params is partially documented in 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?
Description clearly states: 'Call any read-only Talk endpoint by id.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the read-only qualifier distinguishes it from talk_invoke. It relies on the sibling talk_list_endpoints for endpoint specifics, but the basic purpose is 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?
The phrase 'See talk_list_endpoints for descriptions and parameters' provides useful direction for looking up endpoint details. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool over other siblings like talk_get_call or talk_list_calls, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.