mcp-server-zwave-js-ui

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

zwave_rebuild_routes_status

Check whether a Z-Wave network-wide route rebuild (heal) is currently in progress. Poll this tool after initiating a heal to track its status until completion.

Instructions

Report whether a network-wide route rebuild (heal) is in progress.

Returns {"is_rebuilding": bool | null} from the controller state. Poll this after zwave_begin_rebuilding_routes to track a heal to completion.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "zwave_rebuild_routes_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.4.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns {'is_rebuilding': bool | null} from controller state, which is a read-only query. No side effects or additional behaviors are expected, but it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive.

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 that front-load the purpose and then provide return value and usage. No wasted words.

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?

With 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the return type and usage pattern. No additional information needed for selection or invocation.

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?

No parameters exist in the input schema, so baseline of 4 is appropriate. Description does not need to add parameter meaning beyond 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 it 'Report whether a network-wide route rebuild (heal) is in progress.' It specifies the resource ('network-wide route rebuild') and the action ('report status'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'zwave_begin_rebuilding_routes' and 'zwave_stop_rebuilding_routes'.

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?

Explicitly says 'Poll this after zwave_begin_rebuilding_routes to track a heal to completion.' Provides clear context for when to use the tool. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the purpose is self-explanatory for monitoring.

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