UniFi MCP

network_client_action

Block or reconnect a connected client on a UniFi network by specifying site ID, client ID, and action.

Instructions

Execute an action on a connected client (block, reconnect).

Args: site_id: The site ID. client_id: The client ID. action: The action to execute (e.g. "block", "reconnect").

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>",
      "client_id": "<client_id>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "network_client_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes
`site_id`	Yes
`client_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as destructiveness, reversibility, or side effects. The term 'execute action' hints at mutation but lacks specifics.

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 concise at two sentences plus a parameter list, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity. No wasted words.

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?

Given three parameters, no enums, and presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete: it lacks explanation of return values, error conditions, and prerequisites for the action.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value. It lists parameters but does not explain site_id or client_id concepts, and only gives two examples for action without enumerating all valid 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?

The description clearly states the tool executes an action on a connected client, with examples like block and reconnect. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_get_client (read) and network_device_action (different target).

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?

The description implies it is for client management actions such as block/reconnect, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide conditions/precautions.

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

Deploy Server