Skip to main content
Glama
enuno

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

connector_protect_post

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

Instructions

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

Args: console_id: UniFi console/host identifier path: Protect API sub-path, e.g. v1/cameras/{id}/snapshot settings: Application settings body: Optional request body confirm: Must be True to execute dry_run: Preview without sending

Returns: Raw response or dry-run preview

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNo
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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it partially delivers by disclosing the confirm-to-execute safety gate and the dry_run preview mode. It omits what the POST actually does (creates vs modifies), required permissions, and side effects, so the behavioral profile is only partly covered.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Docstring-style and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by terse per-argument lines and a return note. Reasonably tight with minimal waste, though the argument list is somewhat bare rather than explanatory.

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 'Raw response or dry-run preview' is sufficient for returns. But for a 6-parameter, no-annotation write operation the description leaves gaps: no auth prerequisites, no statement of what the POST mutates, and the controller routing parameter is undocumented.

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 coverage is low (17%), so the description must compensate; it annotates most params (console_id, path with format example, body, confirm, dry_run). However it introduces a 'settings' argument absent from the schema and omits the 'controller' parameter entirely, so it neither fully covers nor cleanly matches the schema.

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 and resource: proxying a POST request to the Protect Application via Cloud Connector. The HTTP method plus target distinguishes it from sibling connectors (connector_protect_get/patch/put/delete), though it never names them explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to the other connector_protect_* verbs. The path example ('v1/cameras/{id}/snapshot') implies a usage context, and 'confirm must be True' implies a gate, but the agent gets no criteria for choosing POST over PUT/PATCH.

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