Skip to main content
Glama
enuno

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_internet_health

Retrieve internet health metrics across UniFi sites, or get aggregate metrics when no site is specified, to monitor connectivity status.

Instructions

Get internet health metrics across sites.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_idNoOptional site identifier. If None, returns aggregate metrics.
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 changedv0.6.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / site_id / description
      Added value: +"Optional site identifier. If None, returns aggregate metrics."
  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

C2.9/5.0
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, yet it only says 'get' with no mention of permissions, whether results are cached/live, rate limits, or what 'health' comprises. The read-only nature and return shape are left to inference (the output schema helps with the latter, but the description adds nothing).

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (2 optional params, full schema coverage, output schema present), so the description needn't explain returns or params. What it does lack is any disambiguation from the many health-related siblings, which is the one thing an agent actually needs here.

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 100%: site_id (optional, aggregate when null) and controller (with resolution order) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantics beyond the 'across sites' hint that duplicates the schema, so 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 pairs a specific verb ('Get') with a named resource ('internet health metrics') and a scope ('across sites'), so the agent knows roughly what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from several close siblings such as get_site_health_summary, get_isp_metrics, and health_check, which leaves real ambiguity about which health tool to pick.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_site_health_summary, get_isp_metrics, or health_check, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage signal is the implied 'across sites' aggregation, which is already spelled out in the site_id parameter description.

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