UniFi MCP

network_device_action

Restart, locate, or adopt UniFi devices through natural language commands.

Instructions

Execute an action on a UniFi device (restart, locate, adopt).

Args: site_id: The site ID. device_id: The device ID. action: The action to execute (e.g. "restart", "locate", "adopt").

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>",
      "device_id": "<device_id>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "network_device_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or potential errors beyond the action names.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous text.

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?

The description covers the essential parameter information but lacks guidance on error handling, permission requirements, or differentiation from similar tools. Given the presence of an output schema, return values are not required, but the description is still somewhat minimal.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some value by listing parameters and providing examples for 'action'. However, the descriptions for site_id and device_id merely restate the parameter titles without additional context.

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 UniFi device (restart, locate, adopt). The examples clarify the purpose, and it is distinct from sibling tools like network_client_action which targets clients.

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., network_client_action). The description only lists parameters without context on appropriate usage scenarios.

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

Deploy Server