UniFi MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

connector_protect_post

Proxy POST requests to the UniFi Protect API via Cloud Connector. Send custom payloads to specific Protect sub-paths such as camera snapshots.

Instructions

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

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "console_id": "<console_id>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "connector_protect_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Optional request body
`path`	Yes	Protect API sub-path, e.g. ``v1/cameras/{id}/snapshot``
`confirm`	No	Must be True to execute
`dry_run`	No	Preview without sending
`console_id`	Yes	UniFi console/host identifier
`controller`	No	Controller to run against (see list_controllers). Defaults to the controller chosen with select_controller, then the server default.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedv0.6.4Oct 27, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / body / description
```
Added value: +"Optional request body"
```
addedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
```
Added value: +"Must be True to execute"
```
addedInput schema / properties / console_id / description
```
Added value: +"UniFi console/host identifier"
```
addedInput schema / properties / dry_run / description
```
Added value: +"Preview without sending"
```

addedInput schema / properties / path / description

Added value: +"Protect API sub-path, e.g. ``v1/cameras/{id}/snapshot``"

removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "result": {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      {
+        "items": {},
+        "type": "array"
+      }
+    ]
+  }
+}

addedOutput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "result"
+]
```
addedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
```
Added value: +true
```

Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0Oct 12, 2026

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."
+}

First observedv0.2.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only says 'proxy a POST request' and discloses nothing about mutating side effects, required permissions, or what the confirm gate protects against. The safety semantics live only in the schema's confirm/dry_run descriptions, not in the tool description.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents all six parameters. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description should still explain the confirm/dry_run workflow and controller fallback, which it does not.

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 description coverage is 100% with all six parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about path syntax, body expectations, or controller resolution beyond what the schema already states.

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 (proxy a POST request) and a specific resource (Protect Application via Cloud Connector). The POST verb combined with the name distinguishes it from the connector_protect_get/patch/put/delete siblings, though the description itself never names those alternatives.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the confirm/dry_run execution gate, and no pointer that controller defaults derive from select_controller. The agent must infer usage entirely from the schema and sibling names.

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

Deploy Server