openwebnet-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

Draft Own Frame

draft_own_frame

Construct and validate an OpenWebNet frame using WHO, command type, and WHERE codes to produce a syntactically correct protocol message.

Instructions

Construct and validate a syntactically correct OpenWebNet frame.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`who`	Yes	Subsystem WHO code (1 = Lighting, 2 = Automation, 4 = Climate, etc.).
`what`	No	Action or WHAT code (e.g. 1 for ON, 0 for OFF).
`where`	Yes	Device address (e.g. '12', '0', '21#4#1').
`values`	No	Optional list of values for dimension writes (e.g. ['50', '0'] for 50% brightness).
`dimension`	No	Dimension index (e.g. 1 for level, 0 for temp).
`command_type`	Yes	One of 'command', 'status_request', 'dimension_request', 'dimension_writing'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'construct and validate' but does not explain what happens on invalid input, whether it throws errors, or any side effects. It lacks details about how validation works or what constitutes a valid frame beyond syntactic correctness.

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, succinct sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action and is appropriately concise for the tool's purpose, avoiding any unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain when to use this tool over siblings, what the output frame looks like (though an output schema exists, which mitigates that), or how validation behaves. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter explained (who, what, where, values, dimension, command_type). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage. It does not clarify how parameters interact or provide examples beyond the schema's simple descriptions.

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?

The description states a clear verb ('Construct and validate') and resource ('OpenWebNet frame'), making the purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling parse_and_validate_frame, but the action is distinct enough that an agent can infer it is for creating frames rather than parsing existing ones.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like parse_and_validate_frame or lookup_frame_syntax. The description gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or when the tool should be avoided.

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

Install Server