UniFi Protect MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get bridge

protect_get_bridge

Read-only

Fetch detailed information for a specific UniFi Protect bridge by ID, returning model, MAC, state, type, clients, and max clients.

Instructions

Get full details for a specific bridge by ID. Returns: id, modelKey, name, mac, state, type, guid, platform, clients (array of MACs), maxClients (7.3.70 docs).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Bridge ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Device ID
`mac`	No	MAC address
`guid`	No	Hardware MODEL GUID, shared by every unit of the same model. NOT a per-device identifier — use `id` to identify a device.
`name`	No	Device name
`type`	No	Hardware model name, e.g. "UVC G6 Turret", "UP Chime PoE", "UNVR-PRO"
`state`	No	CONNECTED \| DISCONNECTED \| ...
`clients`	No	Connected client MACs (array of strings)
`modelKey`	No	Resource kind
`platform`	No	Hardware platform, e.g. "mt7621"
`maxClients`	No	Max client capacity (number)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.15.0Oct 14, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / id / pattern
```
Added value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9_-]{1,64}$"
```
- changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +{}
```

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.13.0Sep 20, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / guid

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Hardware MODEL GUID, shared by every unit of the same model. NOT a per-device identifier — use `id` to identify a device.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / type

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Hardware model name, e.g. \"UVC G6 Turret\", \"UP Chime PoE\", \"UNVR-PRO\"",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

Changed10 schema fields changedv2.11.5Sep 13, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / mac / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / mac / type

Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / modelKey / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / modelKey / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / name / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / name / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / platform / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / platform / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / state / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / state / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

Changed3 schema fields changedv2.7.5Jun 21, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / clients

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Connected client MACs (array of strings)"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / maxClients

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max client capacity (number)"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / platform

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Hardware platform, e.g. \"mt7621\""
+}

First observedv2.7.4Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, closed-world read. The description adds little behavioral context beyond enumerating return fields, and since an output schema exists that enumeration is largely redundant. No mention of auth needs, error behavior, or lookup failure semantics.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences; the retrieval purpose leads and the field list follows. Slightly wasteful because the return-field enumeration duplicates what the output schema already provides, but overall tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A simple one-param getter with a full output schema and covering read-only annotations needs little more than a clear purpose statement. The description is complete for correct invocation, though it adds no scoping constraints or error guidance.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single required 'id' parameter documented in the schema, the description's 'by ID' adds nothing beyond structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (bridge) with a qualifying scope ('specific bridge by ID'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling protect_list_bridges. It does not name the list alternative explicitly, so it falls just short of the top bar.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied via 'by ID' - the agent can infer this is the single-item counterpart to protect_list_bridges. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so guidance is adequate but inferential.

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