UniFi MCP

protect_update_camera

Update a UniFi Protect camera's settings including name, OSD text, and LED status.

Instructions

Update a Protect camera's settings (name, OSD, LED, etc.).

Args: camera_id: The camera ID. data: Fields to update (e.g. {"name": "Front Door"}).

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": {
      "camera_id": "<camera_id>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "protect_update_camera"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`camera_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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist; the description only states 'Update' implying mutation. It does not disclose any side effects, permissions needed, or whether updates are partial. Lacks necessary behavioral context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Extremely concise: one sentence plus a minimal docstring. No redundant words; every line adds value.

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 (not shown), so return values need not be explained. However, the description omits valid field names, constraints, error scenarios, and update behavior, making it somewhat incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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?

The description provides example values for 'data' (e.g. {'name': 'Front Door'}) beyond the schema's 'additionalProperties: true', adding some meaning. Camera_id is merely restated. Schema coverage is 0%, but description partially compensates.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('Protect camera's settings'), with examples like name, OSD, LED. It differentiates from sibling read tools like protect_get_camera, though not 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions. The description is minimal and doesn't help the agent decide context.

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

Deploy Server