UniFi Protect MCP

by owine

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

protect_get_ulp_user

Read-only

Get a UniFi Identity user's details by ID, returning name, email, status, and account info.

Instructions

Get details for a specific UniFi Identity (ULP) user by ID. Returns: id, modelKey, firstName, lastName, fullName, email, status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	ULP user ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	ULP user UUID
`email`	No	Email address, added in 7.3.x. Empty string for service accounts (verified live 7.3.47)
`status`	No	Account status, e.g. ACTIVE
`fullName`	No	Full name
`lastName`	No	Last name
`modelKey`	No	Always "ulpUser"
`firstName`	No	First name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.13.0Sep 20, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / email

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Email address, added in 7.3.x. Empty string for service accounts (verified live 7.3.47)",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

Changed10 schema fields changedv2.11.5Sep 13, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / firstName / anyOf

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

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

removedOutput schema / properties / fullName / anyOf

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

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

removedOutput schema / properties / lastName / anyOf

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

addedOutput schema / properties / lastName / 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 / status / anyOf

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

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

First observedv2.7.4Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the list of return fields, which is useful but largely redundant given the output schema. It does not mention error behavior, permissions, or other behavioral details, but with annotations providing the safety profile and the output schema covering return structure, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists return fields. There is no wasted wording or redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-ID tool.

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?

The description is sufficient for a one-parameter tool with a known output schema and safe read-only annotations. It clearly states what the tool does and what it returns. It does not cover edge cases like not-found behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id', and its schema description ('ULP user ID') already defines it. The description repeats 'by ID' but adds no additional semantics, such as format or constraints, beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('details for a specific UniFi Identity (ULP) user'), and the retrieval method ('by ID'). It also lists the returned fields, which makes the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like protect_get_user by explicitly specifying ULP users, and from protect_list_ulp_users by targeting a single ID.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when a single ULP user ID is known, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as protect_list_ulp_users for listing all users. The usage context is clear enough for a get-by-id tool, but explicit guidance would improve the score.

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