debmatic-mcp

Acknowledge Service Messages

acknowledge_service_messages

DestructiveIdempotent

Dismiss active service messages by confirming an alarm ID or channel address to clear warnings like low battery or unreachable status. Warnings reappear if the underlying condition remains.

Instructions

Confirm/dismiss active service messages (e.g. clear a low-battery or unreachable warning). Provide an alarm id (from get_service_messages) to confirm one message, or a channel address to confirm all active messages on that channel. A warning reappears if its condition persists.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "acknowledge_service_messages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Alarm id from get_service_messages (confirm a single message)
`address`	No	Channel address — confirm all active messages on this channel (e.g. '000A1BE9A71F15:0')
`confirm`	No	Set true to authorize this write against a protected CCU target (e.g. prod). Unlocks writes to that target for the rest of the session.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.8.0Jul 5, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description

Previous value: -"Set true to authorize this write against a protected CCU target (e.g. prod)."New value: +"Set true to authorize this write against a protected CCU target (e.g. prod). Unlocks writes to that target for the rest of the session."

Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.0Jul 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirm

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set true to authorize this write against a protected CCU target (e.g. prod).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Addedv1.3.0Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: warnings reappear if condition persists, and mentions the confirm parameter for protected targets. Annotations already cover idempotence, destructiveness, and open-world.

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?

Four sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema, and description does not mention return values (e.g., success indication). Covers key usage and behavior but missing what the agent can expect in response.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. Description reinforces parameter use but adds little new meaning beyond the schema itself.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the action (confirm/dismiss) and resource (service messages) with examples. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_service_messages, though the relationship is implied.

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?

Provides good guidance on using alarm id vs channel address for single vs batch dismissal, and notes that warnings may reappear. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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