UniFi Internal API MCP Server

list_networks

Retrieve network configurations from a UniFi controller, optionally filtering by ID to get details for a specific network.

Instructions

List network configurations, or get a specific network by ID.

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_networks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`network_id`	No	Optional network _id to fetch a specific network

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly states the two operation modes (list all or get by ID), which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention lack of side effects, pagination, or error behavior. This is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant elaboration. It efficiently conveys both core actions while leaving parameter details to the schema.

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, has one optional parameter, and includes an output schema, so the description covers the essentials. It lacks explicit guidance among the many sibling list tools, but the resource specificity and dual-mode description are sufficient for most use cases.

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% coverage with a description for network_id. The description's phrase 'by ID' merely restates what the schema already says ('Optional network _id to fetch a specific network') without adding new syntax, defaults, or edge-case details.

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 uses clear verbs ('List', 'get') and names the resource ('network configurations', 'specific network'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_devices and list_users by focusing specifically on network configurations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage through its resource name, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. With many sibling list tools, an agent would benefit from a note such as 'for device states use list_devices', but such context is absent.

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

Deploy Server