unifi-mcp-server

list-sites-overview

Read-only

Retrieve a health overview of all UniFi sites, showing status, issues, and device counts.

Instructions

Get a health overview of all UniFi sites with status, issues, and device counts

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-sites-overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`extractFields`	No	Comma-separated dotted paths to project from response (e.g. 'id,name,owner.name,columns..name'). Use `` as wildcard for arrays/objects. Wrap field names with dots in backticks. Reduces response tokens dramatically on large entities.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.12.4May 22, 2026
Removedv1.12.3May 15, 2026
First observedv1.11.1May 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and variability. The description adds that the tool returns status, issues, and device counts, but does not explain other behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or result consistency. The description adds some value but not substantial beyond annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and does not waste words. It is concise and efficient.

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 with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose but could provide more detail on what exactly constitutes a 'health overview' (e.g., metrics included, any limits). Given the low complexity, it is adequate but not complete.

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 only parameter, extractFields, is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not mention or elaborate on this parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('health overview of all UniFi sites'), and the content ('status, issues, and device counts'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-sites' (which likely just lists sites without health data) and 'analyze-site-health' (which probably focuses on a single site).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the name and description imply it's for a top-level health overview across all sites, no usage context or exclusion criteria are provided. The guidance is only implicit.

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