Skip to main content
Glama
enuno

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

connector_network_post

Proxy a POST request to the Network Application via Cloud Connector.

Instructions

Proxy a POST request to the Network Application via Cloud Connector.

Args: console_id: UniFi console/host identifier (from list_hosts) path: Network API sub-path, e.g. api/s/default/rest/wlanconf settings: Application settings body: Optional request body to forward confirm: Must be True to execute (mutating operation) dry_run: If True, preview the request without sending it

Returns: Raw response or dry-run preview

Raises: ValidationError: If console_id/path is empty or confirm not provided ValueError: If Site Manager API is not enabled

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNo
pathYes
confirmNo
dry_runNo
console_idYes
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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the confirm gate for a mutating operation, the dry_run preview mode, the return shape ('raw response or dry-run preview'), and the two failure conditions (ValidationError, ValueError when Site Manager API is disabled). It stops short of permissions, idempotency, or rate-limit behavior, so not a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with a single clear purpose sentence, then structured Args/Returns/Raises sections that are easy to scan. Slightly verbose docstring formatting, but each line carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the mutating nature, preview path, error conditions, and most parameters. The phantom 'settings' parameter and missing contrast with PUT/PATCH siblings are the remaining gaps.

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 coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does by explaining console_id provenance (from list_hosts), a path example, confirm semantics, and dry_run. However, it documents a 'settings' parameter that does not exist in the schema while omitting the schema's controller parameter, creating a real inconsistency that undermines the added value.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource: proxying a POST request to the Network Application via Cloud Connector. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling connector_network_get/put/patch/delete tools by HTTP semantics.

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?

Usage is implied by the HTTP verb (POST for creating/submitting) and it notes confirm must be True to execute plus a dry_run preview option. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with connector_network_put or the other connector siblings, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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