UniFi MCP

network_delete_wifi

Delete an existing WiFi broadcast (SSID) from a local UniFi site using its site ID and WiFi ID.

Instructions

Delete a WiFi broadcast (SSID) from a local UniFi site.

Args: site_id: The site ID. wifi_id: The WiFi broadcast 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>",
      "wifi_id": "<wifi_id>"
    },
    "name": "network_delete_wifi"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_id`	Yes
`wifi_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 exist, so the description bears full burden. It states 'Delete' (destructive) but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or impact on associated data. Minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 with two sentences plus parameter listing, front-loading the purpose. It avoids redundancy but could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., bullet points). Still, it is efficient with no wasted words.

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?

Given the simple delete operation with two required parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the basics. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief definitions for both parameters: 'The site ID' and 'The WiFi broadcast ID to delete.' This adds some meaning but lacks detail on how to obtain these IDs (e.g., from list_wifi) or any validation constraints.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a WiFi broadcast (SSID) from a local UniFi site.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like network_create_wifi or network_list_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 vs alternatives (e.g., when to delete vs update). There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios that warrant deletion, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

Deploy Server