Fetches detailed information for a UniFi site by site ID, optionally from a selected controller, so you can inspect site configuration and status.
Get detailed site information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_id | Yes | Site identifier | |
| controller | No | Controller to run against (see list_controllers). Defaults to the controller chosen with select_controller, then the server default. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.4Input schema / properties / site_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Site identifier"v0.6.0Input schema / properties / controllerAdded 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."
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It implies a read-only lookup but does not state permissions, error behavior, scoping, or any other behavioral trait beyond the bare verb 'Get'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is arguably too terse, but it is structurally clean and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The input schema and output schema cover parameters and return shape, but the description does not explain scope or selection context among many similar site-related tools. For a tool in a large sibling set, this leaves an important gap for correct tool choice.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both site_id and controller in detail. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource ('Get ... site information'), but 'detailed site information' is vague and essentially restates the tool name rather than specifying what details are returned. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_site_inventory, get_site_health_summary, or list_sites.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar sibling tools in the list, an agent has no explicit signal for choosing get_site_details over get_site_inventory, list_sites, or get_site_health_summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.