Skip to main content
Glama
enuno

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

connector_network_put

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

Instructions

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

Args: console_id: UniFi console/host identifier path: Network API sub-path settings: Application settings body: Optional request body confirm: Must be True to execute dry_run: Preview without sending

Returns: Raw response or dry-run preview

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

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important safety mechanism ('confirm: Must be True to execute') and the dry_run preview, which is genuinely useful for a mutation tool, but it says nothing about permissions, what state the PUT overwrites, or error behavior.

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 Args/Returns structure is readable, but the parameter list largely restates schema keys and includes a phantom 'settings' entry, so several lines do not earn their place. Front-loading the one-line purpose is good.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and only 17% schema coverage, the description is too thin. The existing output schema means return values need not be explained, but missing information about overwrite semantics, permissions, and the correct parameter set leaves gaps an agent must guess at.

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 description coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate, and it only does so superficially with one-line name glosses. Worse, the Args list includes a 'settings' parameter that does not exist in the schema while omitting the documented 'controller' parameter, reducing trust in the parameter documentation.

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: proxying a PUT request to the Network Application via Cloud Connector. The HTTP method distinguishes it from the sibling connector_network_get/post/patch/delete tools, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 guidance on when to use PUT versus connector_network_patch or connector_network_post, nor any mention of prerequisites. The only contextual rule given is the confirm gate, which is behavioral rather than a usage-routing statement.

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