UV for protection is a waste, IMO. It's taking a really cheap piece of glass and throwing it in front of nice, expensive, optical glass.
Circular polarizers are a must, esp. for outdoors in bright sunlight, but UV is a waste. IMO.
There might be some cheap, poor quality filters on the market but there are also some with optical quality as good as the elements in the nikon lens. In fact Nikon makes filters. There are many lines of good filters and now, with modern optical coating if you buy the "super multi coated" kind they have almost zero optical effect.
Next we can debate if you need a filter or not. But that's a different issue. People us UV filter to "protect" the front element of the lens. But a good filter will cost $30 and if you have a $100 "kit lens" you are over paying for insurance. There are cases where it makes sense too.
While the use of a UV filter is debatable. The filters that actually DO effect the light are nice to nice. Polerizsers are good. and one in a while a nuetral density gradient is good. and I have a small collection of "star"
and 'cross" filters that make light source and hightligt have a starburst pattern (not used these in years) I also have some "softening' filters and one with black net inside the glass. These can soften a portrain without making it look out of focus. Good mostly for older women.
But, now in the age on digital about the only effect that can't be done later in post processing are the polerizer and ND gradient.