UniFi MCP

network_delete_voucher

Delete a hotspot voucher from a local UniFi site by specifying the site ID and voucher ID.

Instructions

Delete a hotspot voucher from a local UniFi site.

Args: site_id: The site ID. voucher_id: The voucher 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>",
      "voucher_id": "<voucher_id>"
    },
    "name": "network_delete_voucher"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_id`	Yes
`voucher_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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It only states 'Delete', implying destructiveness, but does not disclose permanence, authentication requirements, or side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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?

The description is very concise: a one-line purpose sentence followed by a clean list of parameters. No unnecessary words, easy to parse.

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 delete operation, the description covers the core purpose and parameters. However, it omits important context like deletion permanence, prerequisites (voucher must exist), and error conditions. The output schema exists but is not leveraged in the description.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds brief but clear parameter explanations: 'The site ID' and 'The voucher ID to delete.' This sufficiently clarifies the meaning of both required parameters, though more detail (e.g., how to obtain them) would improve it.

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 action (delete) and resource (hotspot voucher) with context (local UniFi site). It distinguishes from sibling delete tools that target different resources like networks or 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other delete tools, or when a voucher should not be deleted). The description only explains what it does, not when to invoke it.

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

Deploy Server