Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UniFi MCP Server

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

list_integration_wans

Lists WAN connections for a UniFi site through the integration API, with optional limit and offset for pagination.

Instructions

List WAN connections 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_wans"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of WANs to return (1-1000)
offsetNoNumber of WANs 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 WANs to return (1-1000)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset / description
      Added value: +"Number of WANs 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 burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only says the operation lists WAN connections. It does not state that this is read-only, whether results are paginated, or any permission or rate-limit considerations; the pagination fields exist only in the schema.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for a simple list operation, though the trailing 'via the integration API' is slightly redundant.

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?

With full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient for invocation, but it does not help an agent choose between this and the many sibling integration list tools. Given the crowded sibling namespace, a sentence identifying the site-scoped WAN resource and its relationship to other integration tools would improve completeness.

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%, so all four parameters are documented in the input schema, including site_id, limit, offset, and controller fallback behavior. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List WAN connections'. It does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as list_integration_networks or get_integration_device, and 'via the integration API' adds little beyond the tool 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?

The description gives no indication of when this tool should be used instead of related list tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The schema shows site_id is required, but the description does not explain the site-scoping requirement or how this relates to controller selection.

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