UniFi MCP

network_update_firewall_policy

Modify firewall policy settings on a UniFi site. Specify the site, policy ID, and updated configuration to apply changes.

Instructions

Update an existing firewall policy on a local UniFi site.

Args: site_id: The site ID. policy_id: The firewall policy ID to update. data: Updated firewall policy configuration.

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": {
      "site_id": "<site_id>",
      "policy_id": "<policy_id>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "network_update_firewall_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`site_id`	Yes
`policy_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'update'—a mutation operation—without disclosing any behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, or side effects.

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 description is short and front-loaded with the core action, but the argument documentation is terse and repetitive, offering limited additional value.

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?

Despite having an output schema and nested objects, the description does not explain return values, constraints, or preconditions, leaving the agent underinformed about the update's full impact.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description provides minimal arg notes (e.g., 'The site ID') that mostly repeat the parameter name, and 'data' is vaguely described as 'Updated firewall policy configuration' without detailing expected structure.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'firewall policy', and the sibling tools include create and delete, making the purpose distinct despite not explicitly differentiating.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete. The description lacks any contextual advice on preconditions or scenarios.

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

Deploy Server