ADT Security MCP Server

Control ADT Door Lock

control-lock

Destructive

Lock or unlock a specific ADT security lock using a one-use confirmation token; unlocking requires explicit user approval.

Instructions

Lock or unlock one exact lock after prepare-security-action returned a matching confirmation token. Unlocking requires explicit user approval.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "lockId": "<lockId>",
      "action": "<action>",
      "confirmationToken": "<confirmationToken>"
    },
    "name": "control-lock"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes
`lockId`	Yes
`confirmationToken`	Yes	One-use token returned by prepare-security-action

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`warning`	No
`verifiedAt`	No
`operationId`	Yes
`auditRecorded`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior; the description adds context beyond that: the confirmation-token chaining and the requirement for explicit user approval before unlocking. It does not describe failure modes or what happens if the token is stale.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the prerequisite, then the approval constraint. No filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the mutation risk is covered by annotations plus the approval note. The remaining gap is how to obtain lockId and what happens on token mismatch.

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 only 33% — only confirmationToken is documented in the schema. The description clarifies the token must match prepare-security-action and implies lockId identifies one exact lock, but gives no guidance for supplying lockId (discovery source, format) or for choosing between lock/unlock beyond the approval note.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb pair (lock/unlock) and scopes it to 'one exact lock', which separates it from the system-wide arm-system/disarm-system siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly gives the precondition (must follow prepare-security-action returning a matching confirmation token) and an approval gate for unlocking. An agent knows exactly when it is allowed to call this and what must precede it.

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

Deploy Server