UniFi Internal API MCP Server

list_events

Retrieve site events from UniFi sorted by most recent first. Control pagination with offset and limit, and set history hours to fetch older network activity.

Instructions

Fetch site events, sorted by most recent first.

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_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Number of events to return
`start`	No	Event offset for paging
`historyhours`	No	Hours to go back

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?

The only behavioral trait disclosed is sorting by most recent first. It does not mention pagination behavior, the role of 'historyhours' as a time window, or any read-only nature. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but provides minimal behavioral context.

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 six-word sentence that directly communicates the core purpose. It is optimally concise with zero filler.

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 has a simple parameter set, a full output schema, and documented parameters. However, the description lacks usage context and behavioral depth, which is noticeable given the large number of sibling tools and the absence of annotations. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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%, and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'Number of events to return'). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Fetch') and resource ('site events'), and adds the sorting order. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_alarms or stat_ips_events, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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. With many sibling list tools, such as list_alarms or list_health, the description should clarify the specific event-related use case or how it differs from similar tools.

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

Deploy Server