Search UniFi controller history for clients by IP, MAC, or hostname. Retrieve past connection records within a configurable time window to troubleshoot and audit device activity.
Search for clients in the controller history
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | Number of hours to look back (default: 8760/1 year) | |
| query | Yes | Search query (IP, MAC, or hostname) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Search' implies a non-mutating read operation and 'controller history' indicates temporal scope, but the description does not disclose response shape, pagination, permissions, or any edge behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the essential operation immediately and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 no output schema, so the description does not need to be extensive. However, the absence of sibling differentiation and behavioral details leaves some ambiguity about what 'controller history' means and how results relate to current client data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query and hours parameters. The description adds general context about clients and history, but it does not provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('clients in the controller history'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_clients, search_network, or get_client_details, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_clients, search_network, or get_client_details. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the word 'history', so the agent must infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.