UniFi MCP

network_update_network

Update an existing network configuration on a UniFi site by specifying the site, network, and new settings.

Instructions

Update an existing network on a local UniFi site.

Args: site_id: The site ID. network_id: The network ID to update. data: Updated network configuration.

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>",
      "network_id": "<network_id>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "network_update_network"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`site_id`	Yes
`network_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

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'update' with no mention of idempotency, permission requirements, side effects, or error handling. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and minimally structured, but it is more under-specified than concisely informative. It lists parameters without adding significant value, which does not fully earn the space.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With three parameters, nested objects, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not address the nature of the 'data' parameter, return values (output schema exists but is not leveraged), or potential error states. A more complete description is needed for effective agent use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to provide parameter meaning. It repeats parameter names with minimal elaboration (e.g., 'The site ID', 'Updated network configuration'), offering little beyond the schema titles. The 'data' parameter is vaguely described despite being a flexible object with additionalProperties.

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 the action ('Update an existing network') and resource ('on a local UniFi site'). The verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishes from create/delete siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like network_create_network, network_delete_network, or network_get_network. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for usage.

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

Deploy Server