UniFi MCP

network_get_wifi

Retrieve detailed information about a specific WiFi broadcast (SSID) by providing the site ID and WiFi ID.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific WiFi broadcast (SSID).

Args: site_id: The site ID. wifi_id: The WiFi broadcast ID.

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_get_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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get detailed information' without indicating side effects, read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or what 'detailed information' includes. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 highly concise: one sentence stating purpose, followed by a brief parameter list. Every word adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and has an output schema (not shown). The description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics, but could be slightly more complete by mentioning what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., signal strength, channel). Overall, it is adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds 'The site ID' and 'The WiFi broadcast ID' for the two parameters. While minimal, it clarifies the role of each parameter beyond their titles. However, it does not provide format, constraints, or examples.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific WiFi broadcast (SSID)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_list_wifi (list all) and network_create/update/delete, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for retrieving details on a single WiFi broadcast. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use or avoid, the context of sibling tools (list, create, etc.) provides clear differentiation. No contraindications are mentioned, but the purpose is straightforward.

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

Deploy Server