UniFi MCP

network_delete_network

Delete a specified network from a local UniFi site using its site and network IDs.

Instructions

Delete a network from a local UniFi site.

Args: site_id: The site ID. network_id: The network ID to delete.

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>",
      "network_id": "<network_id>"
    },
    "name": "network_delete_network"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_id`	Yes
`network_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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Delete' without disclosing destructive behavior, permission requirements, cascading effects, or reversibility. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 very concise—two lines for purpose and two for parameters—with no redundant information. However, it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 the tool's complexity (simple deletion) and the presence of an output schema, the description lacks critical context about consequences, prerequisites, or restrictions. Users are left to guess about permanence and dependencies.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It lists site_id and network_id with minimal descriptions ('The site ID' and 'The network ID to delete'), which adds slight context but not enough detail such as format, source, or validation rules.

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 'Delete a network from a local UniFi site,' which is a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like network_create_network or network_delete_wifi.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., network_delete_wifi). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context about scenarios where deletion is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server