UniFi Internal API MCP Server

list_dashboard

Get dashboard metrics for your current UniFi site. Optionally request 5-minute intervals for more granular performance data.

Instructions

Fetch dashboard metrics for the current site.

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_dashboard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`five_minutes`	No	When true, return stats in 5-minute intervals instead of hourly

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'fetch' implies a read-only operation, and 'current site' adds useful scope. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, whether data is live or cached, or what specific metrics are included.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the essential purpose and scope immediately.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With a single optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is functional. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool among many related list_ and stat_ tools, and 'dashboard metrics' is somewhat vague without further detail.

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 has 100% parameter coverage, including a description for 'five_minutes'. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly states the action ('fetch'), the resource ('dashboard metrics'), and the scope ('current site'). This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like list_health or stat_sites.

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, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description simply states what it does without context on selection.

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

Deploy Server