Skip to main content
Glama
enuno

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

connector_protect_delete

Proxy a DELETE request to the Protect Application via Cloud Connector.

Instructions

Proxy a DELETE request to the Protect Application via Cloud Connector.

Args: console_id: UniFi console/host identifier path: Protect API sub-path settings: Application settings confirm: Must be True to execute dry_run: Preview without sending

Returns: Raw response or dry-run preview

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
confirmNo
dry_runNo
console_idYes
controllerNoController to run against (see list_controllers). Defaults to the controller chosen with select_controller, then the server default.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / controller
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Controller to run against (see list_controllers). Defaults to the controller chosen with select_controller, then the server default."
+}
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the confirm-gate ('Must be True to execute') and dry-run behavior ('Preview without sending'), which are important safety traits for a destructive DELETE proxy. However, it does not describe permissions, reversibility, or the consequences of deletion.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The Args/Returns structure is front-loaded and compact. However, the 'settings: Application settings' line refers to a non-existent parameter, so it does not earn its place and introduces confusion.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is optional, and the confirm/dry_run mechanics are covered. But for a destructive, unannotated DELETE proxy with low schema coverage, the description should explain when to use it versus sibling method-specific tools and should not leave a phantom parameter unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for console_id, path, confirm, and dry_run, but it lists a 'settings' argument that does not exist in the schema (additionalProperties: false) and omits the controller parameter entirely. This mismatch actively misleads an agent about the tool's inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (DELETE proxy) and resource (Protect Application via Cloud Connector), which distinguishes it from sibling connector_protect_get/post/put/patch tools by HTTP method. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of the 5-level sibling differentiation standard.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like connector_protect_patch or connector_protect_put, nor any prerequisites such as permissions or required controller selection. The confirm/dry_run notes hint at execution mechanics but not usage context or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools