Skip to main content
Glama
enuno

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

query_isp_metrics

Query ISP metrics with optional filters.

Instructions

Query ISP metrics with optional filters.

Args: settings: Application settings site_id: Optional site identifier (None for all sites) start_time: Optional start time in ISO format (e.g., "2026-02-01T00:00:00Z") end_time: Optional end time in ISO format

Returns: List of ISP metrics matching the query

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_idNo
end_timeNo
controllerNoController to run against (see list_controllers). Defaults to the controller chosen with select_controller, then the server default.
start_timeNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

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

C2.7/5.0
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 behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing: no pagination behavior, result limits, auth/permission needs, or what happens when filters are omitted. The lone behavioral detail is that omitting site_id queries all sites.

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 structure is front-loaded with the purpose followed by clear Args and Returns sections, and it is not bloated. The only flaw is the inclusion of a non-existent parameter in the Args list, which is more a correctness issue than a conciseness one.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, which helps. But with no annotations, 25% schema coverage, no usage guidance, and an inaccurate Args list (phantom "settings", missing "controller"), the description is not complete enough for an agent to call this confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by giving ISO format examples for start_time/end_time and clarifying site_id semantics. But it lists a phantom parameter "settings" that does not exist in the schema and silently omits the real "controller" parameter, making the parameter documentation actively unreliable.

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 specific verb and resource ("Query ISP metrics") plus the fact that filters are optional, so the agent knows the general capability. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling get_isp_metrics, leaving ambiguity about which one applies to a given need.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_isp_metrics or the other metric/health siblings. The only contextual hint is "None for all sites" for site_id, which is a parameter note, not usage guidance.

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