protect_get_infoRetrieve the UniFi Protect application version to verify the installed software build before managing cameras, lights, or sensors.
Get UniFi Protect application information. Returns: applicationVersion (string).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| applicationVersion | No | Current Protect application version |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.15.0Output schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -falseNew value: +{}v2.11.5Output schema / properties / applicationVersion / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Output schema / properties / applicationVersion / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]v2.10.0v2.9.0v2.7.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the return payload (applicationVersion), which is redundant with the existing output schema, so it contributes little beyond the annotations.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the return value follows. Every clause carries 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 zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, almost nothing is missing. The only gap is the absence of a note on when the info is useful (e.g., version/compatibility checks), which would help an agent decide to call it.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument invocation and adds nothing that could mislead about inputs.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get UniFi Protect application information") and scopes it to the application itself rather than a device. It is implicitly distinct from the many list_*/get_* device siblings, but never explicitly says "application-level, not a device" to differentiate it.
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: the tool is the sole application-info tool among device-centric siblings, so an agent can infer it is for app metadata. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.