UniFi MCP

get_sdwan_config

Retrieve SD-WAN configurations from UniFi. List all configs or get details of a specific configuration, optionally including deployment status.

Instructions

Get SD-WAN configurations and optionally their deployment status.

Without config_id: lists all SD-WAN configurations. With config_id: returns the detailed configuration. With include_status=True: also fetches the deployment status.

Args: config_id: Optional SD-WAN config ID. Omit to list all configs. include_status: If True and config_id is provided, also fetch deployment status.

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": "get_sdwan_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`config_id`	No
`include_status`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It correctly indicates a read operation and describes the conditional behavior based on parameters. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or mention any potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by clear bullet-like explanations for each mode. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given two optional parameters, an output schema, and no required fields, the description covers all usage modes completely. It explains the tool's behavior for all parameter combinations.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: config_id is optional and controls listing vs detail; include_status adds deployment status. Adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Describes specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SD-WAN configurations') with clear distinction between listing all and retrieving a specific one with optional deployment status. Differentiates from sibling tools like get_host or list_devices.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly explains when to use each parameter: omit config_id to list all, provide for detail, and include_status for status. Implicitly suggests when not to use (e.g., for other resources), but lacks explicit alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server