UniFi Network MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get switch stack

unifi_get_switch_stack

Read-only

Get full details of a specific UniFi Switch Stack, including all units, stacking topology, and LAGs, by site and stack ID.

Instructions

Get full details of a Switch Stack including all units and stacking topology. Returns the same fields as the list response but for a single stack: id, deviceId, name, units[] (named members before 10.6.106), lags[], metadata.origin.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteId`	Yes	Site ID
`switchStackId`	Yes	Switch Stack ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`lags`	No
`name`	No
`units`	No
`members`	No
`deviceId`	No
`metadata`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv2.15.0Oct 14, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / siteId / pattern
```
Added value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9_-]{1,64}$"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / switchStackId / pattern
```
Added value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9_-]{1,64}$"
```
- changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / metadata / properties / configurable
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
Changed2 schema fields changedv2.13.0Sep 20, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / deviceId
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / units
```
Added value: +{
+  "items": {},
+  "type": "array"
+}
```
First observedv2.8.0Jun 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the exact returned fields, plus the version caveat that `units` was named `members` before 10.6.106, which an agent would otherwise misread as a different field.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the return contract. The field enumeration is dense but earns its place because of the `members`/`units` version caveat; without that caveat it would be redundant with the output schema.

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 two-required-param read-only detail endpoint with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, nothing essential is missing. The description even goes beyond the minimum by flagging the historical field-name change, so an agent parsing results across controller versions is not surprised.

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 coverage is 100% and both required params (siteId, switchStackId) are documented in the schema with patterns, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or sourcing, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full details of a Switch Stack') plus scope ('including all units and stacking topology'), which cleanly separates it from unifi_list_switch_stacks and the get_lag / get_mc_lag_domain siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The mention that it 'Returns the same fields as the list response but for a single stack' implies the list-vs-get relationship, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. siteId/switchStackId must come from a listing call), and no stated exclusions.

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

Deploy Server