Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UniFi MCP Server

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

list_integration_networks

Retrieve networks for a UniFi site through the integration API, with pagination and optional controller selection, to inspect or audit configured networks.

Instructions

List networks 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_networks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of networks to return (1-1000)
offsetNoNumber of networks 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 networks to return (1-1000)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset / description
      Added value: +"Number of networks 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

C2.6/5.0
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 burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth requirements, no pagination behavior, no indication of whether the list is scoped to a site or global. The phrase "via the integration API" hints at a distinct data source but does not explain what that implies.

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 short sentence with no filler, but its brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency — there is no front-loaded scoping or routing information. It is compact but thin.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool takes four parameters, has a required site_id, sits among dozens of near-identical list tools, and has no annotations; an output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the agent still lacks enough to choose this tool confidently over its siblings or understand its scope.

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%: limit, offset, site_id, and controller are each documented, including the controller default chain referencing select_controller. The description adds nothing on parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb and resource are stated ("List networks"), but "networks" is not disambiguated against a large family of similarly shaped siblings such as list_integration_wans, list_integration_wifi_broadcasts, and list_integration_vpn_servers. The only added content beyond the tool name is "via the integration API," which is close to restating the name.

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 instead of the many other list_integration_* tools, nor any prerequisite or scoping note. The agent must infer from the name alone whether "networks" means WANs, LANs, Wi-Fi networks, or VPN networks.

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