unifi_protect_list_lightsList UniFi Protect floodlights and retrieve their connection state, current on/off status, PIR motion detection, and brightness.
List UniFi Protect floodlights with their connection state, whether the light is currently on, whether PIR motion is being detected, and brightness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety needs no restating; the description instead contributes the return shape (connection state, on/off, PIR detection, brightness), which is the only source of that information since no output schema exists. It omits any note on empty results, pagination, or freshness of the state readings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource first, then the returned attributes. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-param, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description covers both what is listed and what comes back, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around result edges (no lights, state staleness) and auth prerequisites, but nothing that would cause a wrong invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly makes no parameter claims.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb+resource ('List UniFi Protect floodlights') that clearly separates this from the camera/sensor/viewer siblings, and it even enumerates the fields returned. It stops short of naming a sibling or the case where a different list tool applies, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'floodlights' — there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus unifi_protect_list_cameras or unifi_protect_list_sensors, nor any prerequisite (e.g., authentication) called out. For a zero-param list tool this is workable but leaves the agent to infer routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.