Skip to main content
Glama
enuno

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

search_across_sites

Search devices, clients, or networks across all managed UniFi sites to locate resources in multi-site deployments.

Instructions

Search for resources across all sites.

Search for devices, clients, or networks across all managed sites. Useful for locating resources in multi-site deployments.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query (device name, MAC address, client name, network name)
controllerNoController to run against (see list_controllers). Defaults to the controller chosen with select_controller, then the server default.
search_typeNoType of search - "device", "client", "network", or "all"all

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Added value: +"Search query (device name, MAC address, client name, network name)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / search_type / description
      Added value: +"Type of search - \"device\", \"client\", \"network\", or \"all\""
  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

B3.1/5.0
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 disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, result limits, pagination, or whether the search is read-only. The only behavioral hint is the cross-site scope, which is already implied by the name.

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 first sentence ('Search for resources across all sites') is largely restated by the second, wasting the front-loaded position on redundant content. The remaining two sentences are tight, so it is serviceable but not efficient.

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?

For a simple three-parameter search with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is adequate but thin — it omits any note on result volume or cross-controller behavior that would matter in multi-site use.

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 query, controller, and search_type are already fully documented in the schema, including the controller resolution order. The description's mention of devices/clients/networks loosely maps to search_type but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (search) and resource scope (devices, clients, networks across all managed sites), which clearly separates it from the single-site and per-integration listing siblings such as get_site_details or list_integration_devices. It never names an alternative explicitly, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Useful for locating resources in multi-site deployments' implies the usage context but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never points to a competing tool (e.g. list_mobility_devices) for narrower lookups. Usage is inferable but left to the agent.

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