UnifiyMe

list_clients

Retrieve network clients from a UniFi controller. Filter by connection status or search terms to identify specific connected devices.

Instructions

List all connected network clients

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_clients"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`search`	No	Optional search term to filter results
`status`	No	Filter by connection status (default: online)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only repeats that the tool lists clients. It does not clarify what 'connected' means relative to the status parameter, mention that results are read-only, or indicate any filtering default beyond what the schema already says.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the basic purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, a one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain what information is returned, how 'clients' differ from 'devices', or when to choose this over search_network/list_devices, leaving important selection context unresolved.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'search' and 'status' are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters interact with the 'connected' notion, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('network clients'), so an agent can grasp the basic operation. It does not distinguish 'clients' from the sibling 'list_devices', leaving some ambiguity about whether these are endpoint stations or infrastructure devices.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as list_devices, search_network, or get_client_details. It neither states a preferred context nor names alternatives, so an agent must guess from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server