Skip to main content
Glama
enuno

UniFi MCP Server

by enuno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

connector_protect_put

Sends PUT requests to the UniFi Protect API via Cloud Connector for remote configuration changes, with dry-run preview and confirmation safeguards.

Instructions

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoOptional request body
pathYesProtect API sub-path
confirmNoMust be True to execute
dry_runNoPreview without sending
console_idYesUniFi console/host identifier
controllerNoController to run against (see list_controllers). Defaults to the controller chosen with select_controller, then the server default.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed9 schema fields changedv0.6.4
    • 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"
    • 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
  2. 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."
+}
  3. First observedv0.2.0

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. It says nothing about the fact that execution requires confirm=True, that dry_run allows side-effect-free preview, whether PUT replaces or merges state, or what permissions/auth the Cloud Connector needs. Calling it a 'proxy' hints at pass-through semantics but gives no consequence information for a mutating operation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the operation and target, with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leans toward under-specification rather than optimal sizing for a mutating proxy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and the schema documents confirm/dry_run/controller well, but for a destructive PUT proxy with zero annotations the description should explain the confirm gate, dry-run behavior, and what a PUT does to existing Protect resources. None of that is present, leaving a meaningful gap around execution safety.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema (path as a Protect API sub-path, console_id, controller resolution order, confirm, dry_run, body). The description adds no syntax, format, or example detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 PUT request') and resource ('Protect Application via Cloud Connector'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling connector_protect_get/post/patch/delete tools by HTTP method. It does not clarify what the Protect application is or what a PUT implies in this domain, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to choose PUT versus connector_protect_patch or connector_protect_post, and no mention of the confirm=True gate or the dry_run preview flow that the schema exposes. The agent must infer everything from the schema defaults.

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