IDM Heat Pump MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

write_entity

Write a numeric value to a permitted IDM heat pump entity over Modbus TCP, enabling updates to operational data or setpoints by specifying the entity name and value.

Instructions

Write an explicitly allowed entity; writes are disabled by default.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "write_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`value`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the important fact that writes are disabled by default, but it does not clarify whether writes overwrite existing entities, whether values are persisted, what authorization is required, or how failures are handled.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and includes the most critical caveat ('writes are disabled by default') with no filler or repetition.

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?

Although an output schema exists and return values need not be described, the tool still lacks essential context: what 'explicitly allowed' means, how to enable writes, parameter semantics, and behavioral side effects. For a write operation, this is too thin for reliable invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'name' or 'value' mean beyond the schema's generic titles. The word 'entity' hints at the context, but the description fails to clarify naming conventions, value constraints, or how the parameters relate to the write operation.

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-plus-resource ('Write an explicitly allowed entity') and contrasts with read/list siblings by indicating this tool performs writes. The phrase 'explicitly allowed' is somewhat ambiguous, but the core purpose is intelligible.

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?

The description gives a context clue ('writes are disabled by default') but does not state when to use this tool versus list_entities or read_entity, nor does it explain conditions under which writing becomes allowed. Usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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

Deploy Server