Skip to main content
Glama
enuno

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

list_integration_sites

List sites via the integration API.

Instructions

List sites via the integration API.

Returns UUID-based site identifiers suitable for use with other integration API tools in this module.

Args: settings: Application settings limit: Maximum number of sites to return (1-1000) offset: Number of sites to skip

Returns: Paginated list of integration API sites

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo
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 changedv0.6.0
    • 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."
+}
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is a read/list, that results are paginated, and that identifiers are UUID-based and reusable with sibling integration tools. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or whether the listing can fail or return empty, so the disclosure is partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The key statement is front-loaded and the Args/Returns block is conventional, but the 'settings: Application settings' line is wasted (and inaccurate) text, and the Returns section restates what the tool obviously returns since an output schema already exists.

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, so return-value detail is not strictly needed, yet an output schema does not cover the controller-selection semantics (default controller vs. select_controller) that an agent needs to call this correctly. Combined with the phantom 'settings' parameter, the description is only barely sufficient for a 3-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is only 33% (only 'controller' is documented), so the description must compensate — and it does add a valid range for limit (1-1000) and clarifies offset. But it also lists a 'settings' argument that does not exist in the schema, and it omits 'controller' entirely, which is the one parameter whose interaction with select_controller actually matters.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('List sites') and scopes it to the 'integration API' module, which distinguishes it from the plain list_sites sibling at a high level. However, it never explains what makes an integration-API site different from the sites returned by list_sites or list_all_sites_aggregated, so the differentiation is only partial.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative is named, despite a crowded sibling set (list_sites, list_all_sites_aggregated, get_site_details). The only hint is that returned UUIDs are 'suitable for use with other integration API tools', which implies the module context but gives no selection criteria.

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