Skip to main content
Glama
enuno

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

compare_site_performance

Compare performance metrics across all sites.

Instructions

Compare performance metrics across all sites.

Analyzes uptime, latency, bandwidth, and health status to identify best and worst performing sites.

Args: settings: Application settings

Returns: Performance comparison with rankings and metrics

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
controllerNoController to run against (see list_controllers). Defaults to the controller chosen with select_controller, then the server default.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / controller
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Controller to run against (see list_controllers). Defaults to the controller chosen with select_controller, then the server default."
+}
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the analyzed metrics but says nothing about the read-only nature, permissions/controller scoping, rate limits, or cost — a significant gap for a no-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the boilerplate Args/Returns block is partly wasted and partly wrong — it documents a nonexistent 'settings' argument and restates return values already covered by the output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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, and the metric list gives reasonable coverage of what the tool does. The stale 'settings' argument and the absence of any scoping or permission context leave it only minimally complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the controller parameter is well documented in the schema itself, so the baseline would be 3. However, the description's 'Args: settings: Application settings' refers to a parameter that does not exist in the schema, which is actively misleading and worth a deduction.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Compare performance metrics across all sites') and enumerates the metrics analyzed (uptime, latency, bandwidth, health status), so an agent knows what it returns. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_cross_site_statistics or get_site_health_summary, which appear to overlap heavily.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusion or alternative mentioned. With many sibling tools operating on the same site/health data, the description leaves the agent to infer when cross-site comparison is preferred over per-site health or statistics endpoints.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools