Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

simplisafe-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

simplisafe_set_lock_state

DestructiveIdempotent

Locks or unlocks a SimpliSafe smart lock by serial, requiring confirmation before changing the physical door lock and verifying the result.

Instructions

Lock or unlock a SimpliSafe smart lock. 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). Unlocking physically opens a door lock, so it is gated even though it is technically reversible. After executing, the result is verified by re-reading the lock state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sidNoSystem id. Optional when the account has exactly one system; required when it has several.
stateYesTarget: lock or unlock.
serialYesLock serial, from simplisafe_list_locks.
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 changedv1.2.1
    • 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 changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the tool prompts for user confirmation, that unlocking physically opens a door lock, that the fallback requires a phase-1 preview and confirmToken before a repeat call proceeds, and that results are verified by re-reading lock state. These details materially affect how an agent sequences calls and are not derivable from readOnlyHint or destructiveHint alone. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: core operation, confirmation protocol, security rationale for gating, and post-execution verification. The confirmToken mechanics are dense and reference external MCP_CONFIRM_MODE, but the structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 gated mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: confirmation modes, physical consequences, token reuse rules, and verification behavior. The main gap is the exact response shape of phase-1 and phase-2 beyond 'preview and confirmToken,' but the reference to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE partially fills that.

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?

The schema already documents all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant semantics for confirmToken: it must come from the same tool's phase-1 response, only after explicit user approval, never on the first call, never invented, and never reused. This is critical guidance beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 specific verb and resource, 'Lock or unlock a SimpliSafe smart lock,' which makes the operation unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like simplisafe_set_alarm_state. The follow-up detail about confirmation and verification does not blur the core purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives clear procedural context for the confirmation flow and the confirmToken fallback, and it makes clear that unlocking is gated. However, it never explicitly names alternative tools or states when not to use this tool, so an agent must infer that alarm-related changes belong to simplisafe_set_alarm_state.

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