Skip to main content
Glama
mgcrea

mcp-unifi-network

by mgcrea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

UniFi: List Sites

unifi_list_sites
Read-only

List all UniFi sites with their UUID, legacy reference, and display name to resolve site identifiers for other API calls.

Instructions

List the sites on this console with ALL THREE of their identifiers: the id (a UUID, which is what this API's paths take), the internalReference (the legacy 8-character name such as "default", which the unifi_legacy_* tools take) and the display name. Every other tool accepts any of the three for its site argument, so this is mostly useful when a site cannot be resolved or when you need the legacy name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safe read-only nature. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by explaining what the returned identifiers are used for (API paths vs legacy tools), which helps the agent interpret results correctly. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The main action and purpose appear first, followed by precise identifier semantics and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what will be returned and why it matters. It gives the agent enough to know when to invoke this tool and how to use the results.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has no parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description appropriately focuses on the return values instead, which is the most useful semantic information an agent needs here.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sites on this console') plus the key output detail: all three identifiers. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling list tools that target clients, devices, networks, etc.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly explains when this tool is needed: when a site cannot be resolved or when the legacy internalReference name is required. It also clarifies that every other tool accepts any of the three identifiers, so the agent can decide when listing sites is actually necessary.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools