UniFi MCP

protect_update_light

Modify configuration of a UniFi Protect light by specifying the light ID and the fields to update.

Instructions

Update a Protect light's settings.

Args: light_id: The light ID. data: Fields to update.

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": {
      "light_id": "<light_id>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "protect_update_light"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`light_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?

The description does not reveal behavioral traits beyond being an update operation. It lacks details on whether it performs a partial or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, or any side effects. No annotations exist to supplement this.

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 very short and uses a clear structure with bullet points for parameters. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. Every sentence serves a purpose, but the lack of completeness prevents a higher score.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and many similar sibling tools, the description should provide more context about the update operation's scope, constraints, and return values. It leaves the agent guessing about acceptable data fields and update semantics.

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?

The description minimally explains parameters: 'light_id: The light ID' and 'data: Fields to update.' With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds little meaning. It does not specify valid fields for the data object, expected formats, or examples, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 states 'Update a Protect light's settings' which clearly conveys the action (update) and the resource (Protect light). The tool name further reinforces this. While it distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'light' rather than camera, sensor, etc., it does not elaborate on what settings can be updated.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like protect_get_light or other protect_update_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for use, or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server