Skip to main content
Glama
enuno

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

list_integration_vpn_servers

List VPN servers via the integration API.

Instructions

List VPN servers via the integration API.

Args: site_id: Site identifier settings: Application settings limit: Maximum number of servers to return (1-1000) offset: Number of servers to skip

Returns: Paginated list of VPN servers

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo
site_idYes
controllerNoController to run against (see list_controllers). Defaults to the controller chosen with select_controller, then the server default.

Output Schema

TableJSON 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

B3/5.0
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 discloses pagination behavior (limit/offset and a 'Paginated list' return), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about auth requirements, whether the read is safe, or filtering constraints. Adequate but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a conventional Args/Returns block. No filler, though the phantom 'settings' entry slightly muddies the structure.

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, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description appropriately covers pagination and most parameters. However, it fails to mention the controller parameter (which governs which server the call runs against) and introduces a non-existent 'settings' param, leaving the definition partially incomplete and slightly inconsistent with the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 25% (only controller is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It documents site_id, limit (1-1000) and offset, which helps, but it entirely omits 'controller' while listing a 'settings' argument that does not exist in the schema — a stale docstring element that can mislead the agent.

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 specific verb (List) plus resource (VPN servers) and scopes it to the integration API surface. The resource is distinguishable from siblings like list_integration_devices or list_integration_networks, though the description does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling list tools. The agent must infer that this is the right call for VPN servers simply from the resource name.

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