UniFi MCP

network_get_device

Retrieve detailed information about a specific UniFi network device, with an option to include live statistics.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific device.

Args: site_id: The site ID. device_id: The device ID. include_statistics: If True, also fetch latest device statistics.

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>"
    },
    "name": "network_get_device"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_id`	Yes
`device_id`	Yes
`include_statistics`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It states 'Get detailed information' but does not disclose the read-only nature, potential side effects, or what data is returned beyond parameter hints. This is insufficient for a safe read operation.

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 the purpose stated upfront and parameters listed efficiently. No wasted words, but the brevity sacrifices completeness compared to more structured alternatives.

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 tool has an output schema, so return value details are not required in the description. However, the description does not explain what 'detailed information' includes or how to obtain the IDs, which would be helpful given the number of sibling tools.

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?

Given the schema has 0% description coverage, the description adds basic meaning by naming parameters and explaining include_statistics. However, site_id and device_id are only described as 'The site ID' and 'The device ID', which is minimal and could be more informative.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific device', which specifies verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like network_get_client or network_get_network, resulting in a slight deduction.

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 such as network_list_devices or network_device_action. The description fails to mention prerequisites or scenarios for the optional include_statistics parameter.

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

Deploy Server