UniFi MCP

protect_update_sensor

Modify settings for a UniFi Protect sensor by providing the sensor ID and fields to update.

Instructions

Update a Protect sensor's settings.

Args: sensor_id: The sensor 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": {
      "sensor_id": "<sensor_id>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "protect_update_sensor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`sensor_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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully communicate behavioral traits. The term 'Update' implies mutation, but no details on destructiveness, idempotency, permissions, or side effects are disclosed. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise, using a short docstring with an 'Args' section. It contains no fluff, but the brevity sacrifices completeness. It is front-loaded with the purpose statement.

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 (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it fails to provide sufficient context about supported fields, validation rules, or behavior differences from sibling update tools. The documentation is incomplete for a safe and correct usage.

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 lists the two parameters with basic explanations ('sensor_id: The sensor ID', 'data: Fields to update'). With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names. The 'data' object is vague, lacking details about expected properties or constraints.

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 'Update a Protect sensor's settings', specifying the verb and resource. However, among sibling tools like protect_update_camera, protect_update_light, etc., there is no differentiation, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the tool name alone.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios is given, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

Deploy Server