iaqualink-mcp

iaqualink_set_temperature

Idempotent

Set the target water temperature for a pool or spa heater, with confirmation and a re-read to verify the change. This adjusts the set point only, not heater power.

Instructions

Set the pool and/or spa heater set point (target water temperature), in the system’s own unit (iAqua: °F 34–104 or °C 1–40; eXO: °C within its reported range, pool only). This changes the target only — turning a heater on or off is iaqualink_set_equipment. Re-reads to confirm. 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>"
    },
    "name": "iaqualink_set_temperature"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`spa`	No	Spa set point (iAqua only)
`pool`	No	Pool set point
`serial`	Yes	System serial number, from iaqualink_list_systems
`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

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description stays consistent with them. Beyond that it adds real context: the change is target-only, the call re-reads to confirm, and a confirmation gate exists with an explicit rule never to invent or reuse a confirmToken. It stops short of describing what the confirmation response contains beyond the token.

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 primary action and its scope, then the sibling boundary, then the confirmation mechanics — a sensible priority order. It is dense, with stacked parentheticals and a reference to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE that a reader may not resolve from this text alone, but no sentence is filler.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, units and per-family ranges, the target-versus-heater distinction, and the entire confirmation protocol. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly — including the risky confirmToken path — is left unspecified.

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 device-specific meaning the schema lacks: iAqua accepts °F 34–104 or °C 1–40 while eXO is Celsius-only within a reported range and pool-only (matching the schema's 'spa (iAqua only)'). That effectively annotates unit and applicability constraints on the pool/spa arguments rather than restating them.

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 the pool and/or spa heater set point (target water temperature)') and scopes it by unit and device range. It also pre-empts the closest confusion by naming the boundary against iaqualink_set_equipment (turning a heater on or off), so the agent can route correctly without opening sibling schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use (target temperature versus heater on/off) and full when-to-call mechanics: a confirmation prompt where supported, otherwise a preview + confirmToken that must be echoed on a repeat call. The role of MCP_CONFIRM_MODE is named, leaving no inference about the two-phase flow.

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