UniFi MCP

protect_update_liveview

Update an existing UniFi Protect liveview by providing its ID and modified configuration.

Instructions

Update an existing liveview in UniFi Protect.

Args: liveview_id: The liveview ID. data: Updated liveview 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": {
      "liveview_id": "<liveview_id>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "protect_update_liveview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`liveview_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, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'update' without specifying whether it's partial or full replacement, side effects, or required permissions. The return value is not mentioned despite an output schema.

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?

The description is very short and to the point, with a structured 'Args:' format. However, the template-like phrasing could be slightly more concise and natural. Still, no unnecessary words.

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 no annotations, the description should at least hint at the return value or any constraints. It does not, leaving the user to infer behavior. For a simple update, it's barely adequate.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It adds basic meaning: 'liveview_id' is the ID, 'data' is updated configuration. However, it does not elaborate on the structure of 'data' or required fields, leaving ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Update an existing liveview in UniFi Protect,' clearly specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like protect_create_liveview and protect_get_liveview.

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 protect_create_liveview, or prerequisites such as the need for an existing liveview ID. No exclusions or context provided.

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

Deploy Server