iaqualink-mcp

iaqualink_set_chlorinator

Idempotent

Set an eXO salt chlorinator's chlorine output percentage (0–100), with confirmation required before applying the change.

Instructions

Set an eXO salt chlorinator’s output (chlorine production) percentage, 0–100. eXO systems only. Unlike the other controls this write is NOT in the iaqualink-py reference client — its shape is inferred from the reported swc field — so it is confirmed only if a re-read shows the new value. 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>",
      "percent": "<percent>"
    },
    "name": "iaqualink_set_chlorinator"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`serial`	Yes	System serial number, from iaqualink_list_systems
`percent`	Yes	Chlorinator output, 0–100 %
`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?

Adds substantial context the annotations cannot convey: the write is not in the reference client, its shape is inferred from the reported `swc` field, and success is only confirmed by a re-read. It also spells out the two-phase confirmation flow and the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE fallback, which is critical for a mutation whose schema is unverified.

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 the operation and scope, then the trust caveat, then the confirmation mechanics — a logical order. It is dense but nearly every clause carries operational information; only the parenthetical confirmation-prompt detail borders on verbose.

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?

For a non-idempotent-in-practice, unverified write with no output schema, the description covers scope, verification strategy, and the full confirmation protocol, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it safely.

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, but the description adds real meaning by framing `percent` as chlorine production output and by explaining that `confirmToken` belongs to a repeat call after an explicit user approval in chat — reinforcing the strict usage rules in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set an eXO salt chlorinator's output percentage, 0–100') and immediately narrows scope with 'eXO systems only', which distinguishes it from the generic set_aux/set_equipment siblings without needing 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?

Gives a clear applicability constraint ('eXO systems only') that tells an agent when not to use it, and the confirmation protocol describes exactly how to proceed. It does not name an alternative tool for non-eXO systems, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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