Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

Kia Access MCP

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

kia_stop_climate

Idempotent

Stop your Kia's remote climate control with user confirmation, then verifies the command by re-checking vehicle status until the climate is confirmed off.

Instructions

Stop remote climate control (Kia rems/stop, live-verified). 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). Once confirmed it sends the command and re-reads cmm/gvi until the NESTED climate.airCtrl reads false (there is no flat airCtrlOn field); ign3 — the EV ignition proxy — is reported alongside. commandAccepted (Kia took the request) and stateConfirmed (the car actually reads stopped) are separate. State changes were observed to take 30–60s.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vinKeyYesThe vehicle key (`vehicleKey` from the vehicle-list tool), used as the `vinkey` header. Not the VIN.
waitSecondsNoHow long to keep re-reading cmm/gvi for proof the command landed (default 30). Observed changes took 30–60s, so an unconfirmed result is common — re-read the vehicle status rather than re-sending the command. Values above ~45 can outlast an MCP client's own request timeout (often 60s), which then reports a failure for a command that WAS sent. 0 checks once and returns immediately — the command may still land afterwards.
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. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / waitSeconds / default
      Previous value: -60New value: +30
    • changedInput schema / properties / waitSeconds / description
      Previous value: -"How long to keep re-reading cmm/gvi for proof the command landed (default 60). Observed changes took 30–60s. 0 checks once and returns immediately — the command may still land afterwards."New value: +"How long to keep re-reading cmm/gvi for proof the command landed (default 30). Observed changes took 30–60s, so an unconfirmed result is common — re-read the vehicle status rather than re-sending the command. Values above ~45 can outlast an MCP client's own request timeout (often 60s), which then reports a failure for a command that WAS sent. 0 checks once and returns immediately — the command may still land afterwards."
  3. 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"
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations already present, the description still adds substantial behavioral context: the no-network-call first phase, re-reading cmm/gvi until the NESTED `climate.airCtrl` reads false (warning there is no flat `airCtrlOn` field), the separate `commandAccepted` vs `stateConfirmed` semantics, and observed 30–60s state-change latency. The idempotentHint=true annotation aligns with the advice to re-read status rather than re-send, and no contradiction exists.

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?

A single dense paragraph around 120 words with no filler; purpose is front-loaded, and the flow (confirm → verify → result semantics → timing) reads naturally. Given the genuinely complex behavior being encoded — two confirmation modes, polling, nested fields — the length is earned, though headers could marginally improve scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex action tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the key result concepts agents must interpret: preview, confirmToken, commandAccepted, stateConfirmed, and ign3, plus the nested-field gotcha and timing expectations. It doesn't enumerate every possible failure mode (e.g., expired Kia session), but the essentials for correct invocation and result interpretation are covered.

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% — vinKey, waitSeconds, and confirmToken each have thorough schema descriptions including the timeout behavior and the token lifecycle. The main description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource — "Stop remote climate control (Kia `rems/stop`, live-verified)" — naming the underlying endpoint and the verification behavior. This unequivocally distinguishes it from siblings like kia_start_climate and the charge tools even before considering the confirmation-flow details.

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?

Explicitly explains the confirmation requirement and the two distinct invocation paths: a client-supported prompt versus the two-step token fallback, including exactly when a repeat call is allowed and that the first call makes NO network call. It misses explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the confirmation protocol is the central usage decision and it is fully specified.

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