UniFi MCP

protect_update_viewer

Update settings for a UniFi Protect viewer. Specify viewer ID and fields to change.

Instructions

Update a Protect viewer's settings.

Args: viewer_id: The viewer 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": {
      "viewer_id": "<viewer_id>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "protect_update_viewer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`viewer_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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Update' but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or has any side effects. No mention of permissions or error handling.

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 concise with a structured Args format, no redundant sentences. However, it could include more critical details without becoming verbose.

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 tool has a flexible 'data' parameter and an output schema exists, the description does not explain expected inputs or outputs. It fails to provide enough context for effective usage, especially regarding what fields are updatable and any constraints.

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%, and the description adds minimal value: 'viewer_id: The viewer ID' restates the name, and 'data: Fields to update' is vague. For a free-form object, users need more details on valid fields, which are lacking.

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 resource 'Protect viewer,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like protect_list_viewers and protect_get_viewer. However, it lacks specificity about which 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, nor are there any prerequisites or conditions for use. The description simply states what it does without context.

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

Deploy Server