UniFi Internal API MCP Server

list_dpi_stats

Retrieve Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) statistics to analyze network traffic, application usage, and bandwidth consumption on your UniFi network.

Instructions

Fetch Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) statistics.

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_dpi_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Fetch ... statistics' with no mention of side effects, scope (e.g., all vs. filtered), auth requirements, or limitations. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and easy to parse. However, it is minimal to the point of omitting useful context (e.g., sibling distinction), so it does not earn a 5.

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?

The tool is simple (no params) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, the existence of 'list_dpi_stats_filtered' suggests a filtered alternative, and the description does not address this, leaving a contextual gap.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter info because there are none; baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and no compensation is needed.

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 ('Deep Packet Inspection statistics'), clearly stating what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_dpi_stats_filtered', leaving ambiguity about whether this returns all or uniltered stats.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'list_dpi_stats_filtered' suggests a filtered variant exists, but the description does not mention it or provide any context for selecting between them.

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

Deploy Server