Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
iaqualink-mcp

iaqualink-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

iaqualink_list_systems

Read-only

List pool/spa systems on your iAqualink account to retrieve the serial numbers required by other tools. Unsupported device types are marked so you know which systems can be controlled.

Instructions

List the pool/spa systems (iAqualink / Jandy iAquaLink panels and Zodiac eXO salt chlorinators) on the signed-in iAqualink account, with each serial number needed by the other tools. Other device types (e.g. robotic cleaners) are listed but marked unsupported.

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": "iaqualink_list_systems"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoResponse shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "full" returns every field this server understands; "raw" returns the upstream payload unprojected. compact = normalized status; full = plus aux/light details and the unprocessed entries; raw = iAqualink’s responses untouched.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses what the response contains (systems with serial numbers) and that unsupported devices are returned but flagged, which directly shapes how an agent should interpret results.

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 tight sentences with the primary purpose first and the caveat about unsupported device types second. No redundant restatement of the name or annotations.

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 must characterize returns — and it does: systems, their serial numbers, and the unsupported-device marking. Combined with a simple zero-required-param schema and clear annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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 single `view` parameter has 100% schema description coverage including full enum semantics, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about `view`, which is acceptable but not additive; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the pool/spa systems') and enumerates exactly which device families are covered (iAquaLink/Jandy panels, Zodiac eXO chlorinators), plus the key payload element (serial numbers). It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like iaqualink_get_status or iaqualink_check_panel, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'with each serial number needed by the other tools' implicitly positions this as the discovery/entry-point call, and the note that unsupported device types are still listed sets expectations about results. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools