UniFi Internal API MCP Server

list_known_rogue_aps

Lists rogue access points previously identified and marked as known in the UniFi controller, allowing you to review recognized network threats and maintain security.

Instructions

List known rogue access points.

Returns rogue APs that have been previously identified and marked as known in the controller.

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_known_rogue_aps"
  }
}

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context about the filtering (previously identified and marked as known), which is beyond the tool name. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, auth requirements, or potential side effects (though 'List' implies read-only).

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence contributes meaning: the first states the action, the second clarifies the scope. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, list operation), the description is complete. It clearly states what is returned and the filtering logic. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed in the description. No significant gaps.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is perfectly 100%. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description rightly adds no parameter information since there are none to explain.

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 tool lists known rogue access points, using a specific verb ('List') and a resource ('known rogue access points'). It further distinguishes from sibling tool list_rogue_aps by specifying these are previously identified and marked as known in the controller, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: it returns rogue APs that have been previously identified and marked as known. It implies the tool is for known/identified rogue APs rather than a general list, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_rogue_aps for all APs').

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

Deploy Server