Domoticz MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.3.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: login status, dimmer control, user variable CRUD, and event management. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, e.g., get_oauth_login_status, set_dimmer_level, add_user_variable. Verbs appropriately describe actions.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a focused integration covering authentication, device control, variables, and events. Not overly large or small.
Completeness2/5
Missing essential operations: no get_user_variable to read variables, no delete_event, and no tools for other common Domoticz devices like switches or sensors. Gaps may cause agent failures.
Average 3.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 2 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 23, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under GPL 3.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Create'. It does not explain side effects, required permissions, or interaction with the Domoticz system referenced in the cross-link.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While short, the description is overly terse (one sentence) given the tool has 5 parameters and a cross-reference. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, and the cross-reference may require external lookup.
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?
The description fails to provide context for the 'xmlstatement' field, event types, or interpreter options. An output schema exists but its content is absent from the description. The cross-reference partially compensates but is not self-contained.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are documented individually. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The title 'Create event script' and description 'Create script' indicate the purpose of creating an event or script, but lack specificity about what kind of event or what 'script' refers to. It is barely sufficient to distinguish from siblings like 'update_event', but does not clarify scope or output.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_event' or 'delete_user_variable'). No prerequisites, contraindications, or contextual triggers are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of 'Requires confirm=True' adds limited value by confirming the high-impact nature. No contradictions with annotations. Additional behavioral details about the update process are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences), which is concise but omits important context. It is front-loaded but lacks detail about the tool's purpose and behavior.
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?
With 7 parameters (5 required) and an output schema not described, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or differentiation from sibling 'create_event'. The tool is complex but the description is sparse.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update script' which clearly indicates a modification operation on an event script, and the cross-reference provides context. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'create_event' or specify the scope of update.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_event'. The description mentions a requirement for confirm=True but does not explain when this tool is appropriate or when other tools should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses only the vtype mapping and a cross-reference. It does not mention side effects (e.g., duplicate handling), authorization needs, or any behavioral traits beyond the annotations, which are minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (two fragments), which is concise but lacks structure. It could be better organized as a proper sentence with clearer specification.
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's simplicity, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the operation's effect, expected return, or any special conditions. The cross-reference is not explained, leaving gaps for an agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description redundantly restates the vtype enum mapping already present in the schema, adding no new semantic value for the parameters.
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 title 'Add user variable' and description 'Add var' clearly indicate the action, though the description is terse and could be more explicit. The sibling tools (update, delete) help disambiguate, making the purpose clear overall.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_user_variable or delete_user_variable. It only offers a vtype mapping, so an agent lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which description does not elaborate on. No added behavioral context beyond cross-reference.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short and to the point. No wasted words, but could include more information without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing usage guidelines and behavioral details. Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states 'Update var value' with the resource being user variables. Title matches. Distinguishes from siblings: add and delete.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to update vs add). The cross-reference is not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the important behavioral note that confirmation is required, which is useful beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Extremely concise at two short sentences with no wasted words. The key information (purpose, preference, requirement) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with an output schema available, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on consequences beyond the confirmation requirement, but covers essential usage guidance.
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 100% with detailed descriptions. The description reinforces the preference for idx and the requirement for confirm, but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Description states 'Delete var', which clearly indicates a delete operation on a user variable. The verb-resource pairing is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like add_user_variable and update_user_variable.
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?
Provides guidance on parameter preference ('Preferred: idx') and a requirement ('Requires confirm=True'), but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning that the tool checks a browser login and that the agent should retry only after status completes, which guides correct invocation. No contradictions with 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 extremely concise: two sentences that state the purpose and provide essential guidance. Every word is necessary, with no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Given the low complexity (1 parameter) and rich annotations plus output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit instruction to call repeatedly for polling, but this is implied by the retry guidance. Suitable for a simple read tool.
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 100% with a clear description of 'flow_id' as an opaque identifier from start_oauth_login. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Check a browser login', which clearly indicates the tool's function of verifying OAuth login status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that manage devices, variables, and events. However, it could be more specific about what 'check' returns (e.g., status or progress).
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 gives implicit usage guidance: 'Retry the original operation only after status is complete.' This suggests polling behavior but does not explicitly state when to use the tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. A more explicit usage context would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotent, destructive, and non-read-only behavior. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., side effects, authentication). It provides the brightness range, which is already in the schema. No contradiction with 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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The key purpose is front-loaded, followed by a usage hint. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.
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?
The description is complete for a simple tool with good schema coverage, annotations, and output schema. It covers the core operation, parameter preferences, and cross-reference, requiring no further explanation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by stating 'Preferred: `idx`' and providing a cross-reference link, which helps the agent prioritize parameters beyond schema definitions.
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 clearly states the action ('Set brightness') and specifies the valid range (0-100). It also distinguishes the preferred parameter (idx) from alternatives, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly recommends using 'idx' over 'name', which guides parameter selection. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternatives (though sibling tools are unrelated, so no explicit exclusion is necessary).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![domoticz-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/adrighem/domoticz-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/adrighem/domoticz-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![domoticz-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/adrighem/domoticz-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/adrighem/domoticz-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/adrighem/domoticz-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server