Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UniFi MCP Server

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

list_integration_clients

Retrieve connected clients for a specified UniFi site via the integration API, using limit and offset pagination and an optional controller, to inspect client status.

Instructions

List connected clients 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>"
    },
    "name": "list_integration_clients"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of clients to return (1-1000)
offsetNoNumber of clients to skip
site_idYesSite 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. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Maximum number of clients to return (1-1000)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset / description
      Added value: +"Number of clients to skip"
    • 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

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 says nothing about pagination behavior, permissions, controller selection effects, or result characteristics. 'Via the integration API' only names the transport surface, which is already implied by the tool name. Whether this is a read-only, safe operation must be inferred from the verb alone.

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 or repetition. Its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than efficient density, which keeps it short of 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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so the structured data covers return values and parameter meaning. Still, for a tool with four siblings that list similar client/device resources and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without routing or behavioral context it would need to call this confidently.

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%, with limit, offset, site_id, and controller all documented in the schema, including the controller fallback chain. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List connected clients') and adds the API surface ('integration API'), which matches the list_integration_* naming family. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from close siblings like list_mobility_device_clients or list_integration_devices, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which client list it needs.

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 this versus the several other list/get client and device tools in the sibling set. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of when this tool is the wrong choice are given.

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