iaqualink-mcp

iaqualink_delete_schedule

Destructive

Remove one scheduled program from a Jandy AquaLink RS panel via WebTouch by matching its exact listed row, circuit, times and days; requires confirmation and cannot be undone.

Instructions

Delete one program from a Jandy AquaLink RS panel’s schedule (iAqua systems), through WebTouch. The panel stores the deletion immediately, with no undo. Identify the program exactly as iaqualink_list_schedules listed it (page, row, circuit, start, stop, days) — if the panel no longer shows that, nothing is pressed. The preview shows the list before and after; the result re-reads it. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

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": {
      "serial": "<serial>",
      "row": "<row>",
      "circuit": "<circuit>",
      "start": "<start>",
      "stop": "<stop>",
      "days": "<days>"
    },
    "name": "iaqualink_delete_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`row`	Yes	Its row on that page (1–7)
`days`	Yes	Its current run days, as listed
`page`	No	The page the schedule was listed on (from iaqualink_list_schedules)
`stop`	Yes	Its current stop time, HH:MM as listed
`start`	Yes	Its current start time, HH:MM as listed
`serial`	Yes	System serial number, from iaqualink_list_systems
`circuit`	Yes	Its circuit, as listed
`confirmToken`	No	ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations (destructive, non-idempotent, open-world) by disclosing that deletion is stored immediately with no undo, that a mismatched identity aborts without pressing anything, and that a preview/after-read bracket the mutation. The two-step confirmToken fallback and MCP_CONFIRM_MODE behavior are spelled out, which is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then consequences, then matching rules, then confirmation mechanics — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense and packs three distinct concerns into one paragraph, slightly reducing scanability, but nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description still tells the agent what to expect (a preview of the list before and after, and a post-result re-read). For a destructive, confirmation-gated tool this covers the safety profile, inputs, and return behavior without gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by explaining that the identity tuple (page, row, circuit, start, stop, days) is a match key taken from iaqualink_list_schedules rather than arbitrary input, which clarifies why the parameters must be exact. confirmToken semantics are largely duplicated from the schema but reinforced as never-invented, never-reused.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Delete'), a bounded resource ('one program from a Jandy AquaLink RS panel's schedule'), and the transport ('through WebTouch'). The delete verb plus the 'one program' scope separates it cleanly from the sibling add/edit/set schedule tools without opening their schemas.

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?

States a hard prerequisite ('Identify the program exactly as iaqualink_list_schedules listed it') and a when-not condition ('if the panel no longer shows that, nothing is pressed'), plus the confirmation requirement. It stops short of naming edit_schedule as the alternative when the user actually wants to change a program rather than remove it.

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