UniFi Internal API MCP Server

list_alarms

Fetch and filter UniFi network alarms by attributes like archived status to monitor relevant events.

Instructions

Fetch alarms, optionally filtered.

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_alarms"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`payload`	No	Filter flags, e.g. {"archived": false}

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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. It conveys a read operation via 'Fetch' and mentions the optional filtering behavior, but lacks details on pagination, defaults, authorization, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action (Fetch alarms) and qualifies it with the optional filter, making it appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is simple (one optional param) and benefits from a 100% schema description coverage and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters or return values. It sufficiently states the core purpose, though it lacks usage context or alternatives. For this simplicity level, the description is mostly complete.

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?

The input schema already documents the 'payload' parameter with a description and example filter flags, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds only the phrase 'optionally filtered,' which restates the optional nature already evident from the schema's default null value. Thus minimal additional value is provided.

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 specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'alarms', clearly indicating the tool lists alarm data. It also notes the optional filtering capability. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'count_alarms' tool, though the verb implies listing rather than counting.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'count_alarms' or 'list_events'. There is no mention of typical use cases, needed permissions, or context for filtering.

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

Deploy Server