Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UniFi MCP Server

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

compare_site_performance

Compare uptime, latency, bandwidth, and health across UniFi sites to pinpoint underperforming and high-performing locations for troubleshooting or optimization.

Instructions

Compare performance metrics across all sites.

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

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "compare_site_performance"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is analyzed and that the result identifies best and worst sites, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, how rankings are determined, or whether it runs live data collection.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the comparison purpose and then specifies the measured dimensions and the ranking output.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity tool with one fully described optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, metrics, and expected comparative outcome. The main remaining gap is the lack of read-only/side-effect context and explicit sibling routing, which is a minor deficiency given the output schema and schema coverage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single optional controller parameter is already well documented in the schema, including its default resolution order. The description adds no additional meaning about the controller parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: compare performance metrics across all sites, and it enumerates the dimensions analyzed (uptime, latency, bandwidth, health status). This is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as get_cross_site_statistics or get_site_health_summary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The use case is implied by the phrase 'identify best and worst performing sites,' which suggests this is for comparative ranking across sites. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions.

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