UniFi Protect MCP

by owine

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

protect_list_users

Read-only

List all Protect users accessible to your API key, returning names, emails, and basic identifiers for each.

Instructions

List all Protect users (filtered by the API key's access permissions). Returns array; each user includes (Integration API 7.3.47-verified): id, modelKey, name, firstName, lastName, email, ucoreUserId. The Integration API does NOT expose roles, permissions, login history, groups, or notification settings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Array of items returned by the list endpoint

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed12 schema fields changedv2.11.5Sep 13, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / result / items / properties / email / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / result / items / properties / email / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- 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 / 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 / name / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / result / items / properties / name / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / result / items / properties / ucoreUserId / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / result / items / properties / ucoreUserId / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
First observedv2.7.4Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing API-key-based filtering and explicitly listing fields that are NOT exposed (roles, permissions, login history, groups, notification settings). This helps agents set expectations 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core action and scope appear in the first sentence, followed by return fields and important exclusions. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simple profile (0 parameters, read-only annotations, output schema present), the description is complete. It specifies the filtered listing behavior, the exact fields returned per the Integration API, and the notable data the API does not expose, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds value by explaining the filtered scope of the returned results, which is relevant even without parameters.

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 action ('List all Protect users') and resource, with explicit scoping ('filtered by the API key's access permissions'). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like protect_get_user (single resource) and protect_list_ulp_users (different user type).

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 usage when a caller needs the full set of Protect users visible to the API key. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as protect_get_user or protect_list_ulp_users, nor does it mention exclusions or preconditions.

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