Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

Kia Access MCP

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

kia_set_charge_limits

Idempotent

Set the target charge level for AC and DC plugs to manage vehicle battery limits. After applying the new limits, verify the change is confirmed and report whether the update succeeded.

Instructions

Set the target state of charge per plug type (evc/sts). Verified against a real vehicle. The write is checked: afterwards the targets are re-read from evc/gts and compared, and the result reports whether the change actually landed. Send BOTH plug types — the list replaces the stored one, so omitting an entry drops that target. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call makes NO network call and returns a preview plus a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). The preview step makes no call at all, not even the baseline read.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
verifyNoRe-read evc/gts afterwards to check the change landed. Defaults to true.
vinKeyYesVehicle key (the `vehicleKey` from the vehicle-list tool). Not the VIN.
targetsYesOne entry per plug type. Read the current targets first and change only what you mean to.
confirmTokenNoONLY 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.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "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.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / targets / items / properties / plugType / description
      Previous value: -"Plug type, 0 or 1 — one entry per plug type (AC and DC). Which number is which is NOT verified: read the current targets first and mirror the plugType values it returns."New value: +"Plug type: 1 = AC, 0 = DC per the open-source Kia client, though this server has not confirmed it against a vehicle (both targets were set and restored together during verification, so the two were never distinguished). Safest usage is unchanged: read the current targets first and mirror the plugType values it returns. Note evc/sts REPLACES the list, so send an entry for BOTH plug types."
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds crucial behavior: the write is verified by re-reading evc/gts, the first call in fallback mode makes no network call and returns a preview+confirmToken, and the preview step makes no call at all. This fully discloses the side effects and state changes, far exceeding annotation coverage.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: the core action, verification behavior, list-replacement warning, confirmation flow, and fallback detail. It is front-loaded with the purpose and proceeds logically. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (confirmation, verification, replacement semantics), the description covers all necessary context. It explains the two-phase behavior, the impact of omitting entries, and the verification step. With no output schema, it also describes what the preview response contains. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., plugType mapping, targetSOClevel range, confirmToken usage). The schema itself is detailed, so the description correctly relies on it without redundancy.

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?

The description opens with a precise verb-resource pair: 'Set the target state of charge per plug type'. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling kia_charge_targets (likely a read operation) and from start/stop charge tools. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

The description provides explicit usage instructions: send BOTH plug types because the list replaces the stored one, read current targets first (echoed in schema), and handle the confirmation flow. It explains the two-step fallback and when the confirmToken is needed, leaving no ambiguity about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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