Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UniFi MCP Server

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_sdwan_config_status

Retrieve SD-WAN configuration deployment status by configuration ID to verify whether UniFi SD-WAN changes are applied, pending, or failed.

Instructions

Get SD-WAN configuration deployment status.

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": {
      "config_id": "<config_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_sdwan_config_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
config_idYesConfiguration identifier
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 / config_id / description
      Added value: +"Configuration 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

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 disclosure burden, yet it adds nothing beyond the title-level claim. It does not say whether this is a read-only poll, whether status values converge over time (requiring repeated calls), whether permissions are needed, or what happens if config_id is unknown. The presence of an output schema covers the return shape, which softens but does not close the gap.

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 padding, which is structurally sound. It sits at the edge of being under-specified rather than merely concise, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Complexity is low (two parameters, no nesting), the schema is fully documented, and an output schema exists, so the essentials for invocation are covered. What is missing is behavioral context absent from any structured field, notably that a deployment status may need polling and how it relates to get_sdwan_config.

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% and the controller parameter already documents its fallback chain (explicit value, then select_controller, then server default). The description adds no extra meaning about config_id or controller, 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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('SD-WAN configuration deployment status'), which is more precise than the sibling get_sdwan_config or list_sdwan_configs. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer that this returns deployment state rather than the configuration body itself.

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, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related questions such as fetching the config itself or listing configs. The agent is left to infer that this is a post-deployment verification call from the word 'status' alone.

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