Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UniFi MCP Server

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_integration_dns_policy

Retrieve a single DNS policy by site ID and policy UUID through the integration API to inspect its configuration before auditing or updating network rules.

Instructions

Get a single DNS policy via the integration API.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site_id": "<site_id>",
      "policy_id": "<policy_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_integration_dns_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_idYesSite identifier
policy_idYesDNS policy UUID
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. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / policy_id / description
      Added value: +"DNS policy UUID"
    • addedInput schema / properties / site_id / description
      Added value: +"Site identifier"
  2. 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."
+}
  3. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only call, but the description says nothing about authentication requirements, error behavior for an invalid or missing policy (404 vs empty result), or whether the integration API and controller-scoped APIs behave differently — 'via the integration API' hints at a distinct surface without explaining it.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere rather than being paired with useful content.

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 no explanation, and all three parameters are fully documented in the schema. What remains missing is behavioral and routing context: when to prefer this over the list tool, and what happens on lookup failure — acceptable minimum, but not complete for a tool embedded in a large sibling set.

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%: site_id, policy_id, and the controller fallback chain (select_controller, then server default) are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Get a single DNS policy.' The word 'single' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_integration_dns_policies, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 only implied — 'single' suggests fetching one known policy rather than browsing, which points toward list_integration_dns_policies for enumeration. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g., needing a site_id plus a policy UUID obtained from the list tool), and no stated alternative.

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