Skip to main content
Glama
owine

UniFi Protect MCP

by owine

protect_list_ulp_users

Read-only

List all UniFi Identity (ULP) users to view names, emails, and account statuses. It does not expose enrolled credential details.

Instructions

List all UniFi Identity (ULP) users. Returns array; each ULP user includes (Integration API 7.3.47-verified): id, modelKey, firstName, lastName, fullName, email (empty string for service accounts), status (e.g. ACTIVE). Enrolled-credential detail (NFC cards, fingerprints) is NOT exposed by this API surface.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYesArray of items returned by the list endpoint

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.13.0
    • addedOutput schema / properties / result / items / 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"
      +  ]
      +}
  2. Changed10 schema fields changedv2.11.5
    • removedOutput schema / properties / result / items / properties / firstName / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / result / items / properties / firstName / type
      Added value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / result / items / properties / fullName / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / result / items / properties / fullName / type
      Added value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / result / items / properties / lastName / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / result / items / properties / lastName / type
      Added value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / result / items / properties / modelKey / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / result / items / properties / modelKey / type
      Added value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / result / items / properties / status / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / result / items / properties / status / type
      Added value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "null"
      +]
  3. First observedv2.7.4

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the exact fields returned and explicitly noting that enrolled-credential details (NFC cards, fingerprints) are NOT exposed. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful behavioral context about the API surface's limitations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information: the first states what the tool does, the second details the return shape and an important limitation. No wasted words.

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?

For a parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential information: the return type, the fields included, and the notable omission (credential details). It also notes API version verification. It doesn't discuss pagination or error handling, but these are minor for a simple list operation. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms no properties. Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to explain any. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter details.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List all UniFi Identity (ULP) users.' It also clarifies the exact user type (ULP) and the return format (array), distinguishing it from sibling tools like protect_list_users (Protect users) and protect_get_ulp_user (singular). The API version verification adds specificity.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context: this tool lists all ULP users. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as protect_list_users or protect_get_ulp_user, nor does it state when to use this tool versus others. The purpose is unambiguous, but there is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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