debmatic-mcp

List Functions

list_functions

Read-only

Lists all function groups (Heating, Lighting, etc.) with assigned channel IDs, enabling quick identification of devices by their functional role.

Instructions

List all function groups (Heating, Lighting, etc.) with their assigned channel IDs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No	CCU target to read from (default: active). See list_ccu_targets.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`functions`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.7.0Jul 4, 2026

addedInput schema / $schema

Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

addedInput schema / properties / target

Added value: +{
+  "description": "CCU target to read from (default: active). See list_ccu_targets.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.0Jun 17, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "functions": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "functions"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.1.2Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by stating what is listed (all function groups with channel IDs), which aligns with and adds to the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with key information: verb, resource, and output detail. Highly concise.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and behavior. No missing essential information.

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 parameter is already documented. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond referencing list_ccu_targets for context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List', the specific resource 'function groups', and the output detail 'with their assigned channel IDs'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_devices and list_programs.

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 implies usage (listing all function groups) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The optional target parameter is mentioned with a reference to list_ccu_targets, but no when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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