Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UniFi MCP Server

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

list_integration_devices

Retrieve adopted UniFi devices for a specified site via the integration API, with optional pagination and controller selection.

Instructions

List adopted devices 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_devices"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of devices to return (1-1000)
offsetNoNumber of devices to skip
site_idYesSite identifier (UUID or internal reference)
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 devices to return (1-1000)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset / description
      Added value: +"Number of devices to skip"
    • addedInput schema / properties / site_id / description
      Added value: +"Site identifier (UUID or internal reference)"
  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 and delivers almost none of it. It does not say whether results are paginated, whether 'adopted' implies any filtering, what permissions or integration credentials are needed, or how failures surface — all material for a list tool over an external integration API.

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 efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal 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 output schema exists and all four parameters are fully documented, so the mechanical call path is covered. What is missing is the surrounding context — when to use this integration-API lister instead of the mobility or per-device siblings, and any note about pagination or controller resolution — leaving an agent to reconstruct intent from sibling names.

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 schema itself explains limit ranges, offset meaning, site_id formats, and the controller fallback chain via list_controllers and select_controller. The description adds nothing 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List adopted devices') plus a scoping qualifier ('via the integration API'), which separates it from the mobility-API siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative such as list_mobility_devices or get_integration_device, so an agent still has to infer the distinction from the sibling names alone.

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 pick this over list_mobility_devices, list_integration_device_tags, or get_integration_device. No preconditions (site must exist, controller selection) are stated even though the controller parameter implies a selection step.

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