Skip to main content
Glama
owine

UniFi Network MCP Server

by owine
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

unifi_list_acl_rules

Read-only

List ACL rules for a site to inspect switch/AP access controls, including action, source/destination filters, and evaluation order.

Instructions

List ACL rules (switch/AP-level access control lists, distinct from zone-based firewall policies) at a site. Returns: id, type (IPV4/MAC), name, enabled, action (ALLOW/BLOCK), description, protocolFilter, sourceFilter/destinationFilter matchers, enforcingDeviceFilter (which devices apply the rule), index (evaluation order — read-only; change it with unifi_reorder_acl_rules), metadata.origin. ACLs apply earlier in the path than firewall policies.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of records to return (default: 25, max: 200)
filterNoFilter expression
offsetNoNumber of records to skip (default: 0)
siteIdYesSite ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
countNo
limitNo
offsetNo
totalCountNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.13.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
      Previous value: -1New value: +0
    • addedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / index
      Added value: +{
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Addedv2.10.0
  3. Removedv2.9.0
  4. First observedv2.8.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the exact return fields, the read-only nature of 'index' with a pointer to the mutation tool, and the architectural fact that ACLs apply earlier in the path than firewall policies. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the field enumeration in sentence two is dense but each item carries semantic value (IPV4/MAC types, ALLOW/BLOCK actions, read-only index). Slightly long, and the return enumeration partially overlaps with the existing output schema, but no sentence is wasted.

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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, 100% parameter documentation, and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, sibling differentiation, return field semantics, mutation routing, and path-ordering context. Nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters (siteId, limit, filter, offset). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; 'at a site' only redundantly maps to siteId. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the full weight.

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 ('List'), resource ('ACL rules'), and scope ('at a site'), and immediately distinguishes itself from zone-based firewall policies with the parenthetical 'switch/AP-level access control lists, distinct from zone-based firewall policies'. This cleanly differentiates it from siblings like unifi_list_firewall_policies.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear when-not guidance ('distinct from zone-based firewall policies') and names unifi_reorder_acl_rules as the correct tool for changing the index. It does not explicitly name unifi_list_firewall_policies as the alternative for zone-based policies, but the exclusion is unambiguous enough that an agent can route correctly.

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