Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UniFi MCP Server

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

query_isp_metrics

Retrieves ISP performance metrics for a UniFi site or controller, with optional start and end time filters.

Instructions

Query ISP metrics with optional filters.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "query_isp_metrics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_idNoOptional site identifier (None for all sites)
end_timeNoOptional end time in ISO format
controllerNoController to run against (see list_controllers). Defaults to the controller chosen with select_controller, then the server default.
start_timeNoOptional start time in ISO format (e.g., "2026-02-01T00:00:00Z")

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / end_time / description
      Added value: +"Optional end time in ISO format"
    • addedInput schema / properties / site_id / description
      Added value: +"Optional site identifier (None for all sites)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / start_time / description
      Added value: +"Optional start time in ISO format (e.g., \"2026-02-01T00:00:00Z\")"
  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

C2.8/5.0
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, yet it only implies a read operation via 'Query' and mentions optional filtering. It does not disclose permissions, rate limits, result volume, or any other behavioral traits beyond the bare action.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a four-parameter query tool. There is no structural guidance for routing or qualification.

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?

Rich structured data (100% schema coverage, output schema present) covers parameters and return values, but the description still omits the key routing context needed to choose this tool over its close sibling 'get_isp_metrics'. For a tool in a crowded query family, this is a meaningful completeness gap.

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 fully documented in the schema, including the controller defaulting behavior and ISO time format examples. The description adds only 'optional filters,' which aligns with the schema but contributes no additional semantic meaning beyond it.

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'), so the general action is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the nearly identical sibling 'get_isp_metrics' or explain which types of ISP metrics are covered, leaving an important selection gap.

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 only usage hint is 'with optional filters,' which implies broad querying but gives no when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to call this, 'get_isp_metrics', or 'get_cross_site_statistics' for a given task.

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