debmatic-mcp

List Direct Device Links

list_links

Read-only

Find direct sender-to-receiver device links (Direktverknüpfungen) that operate independently of the central unit. Filter by device or channel address to inspect specific connections.

Instructions

List direct device links (Direktverknüpfungen) — sender→receiver channel pairings that operate independently of the CCU (e.g. a wall switch directly driving a lamp, or thermostats linked to a FALMOT). Read-only. Optionally filter to links involving a specific device or channel address.

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": "list_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No	CCU target to read from (default: active). See list_ccu_targets.
`address`	No	Device or channel address to filter by (e.g. '000A1BE9A71F15' or '000A1BE9A71F15:1')

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`links`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.0Jul 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / target

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

Addedv1.3.0Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and openWorldHint true; the description adds value by explaining that links are sender→receiver pairings independent of CCU, clarifying the read-only nature and optional filtering.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: first defines the resource with examples, second explains optional filtering. 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 read-only list tool with an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description sufficiently explains the purpose, filtering, and independent nature of links. No gaps noted.

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 parameter descriptions; the description reiterates the address filter but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool lists 'direct device links' with examples (wall switch to lamp, thermostats to FALMOT), distinguishing it from sibling list tools that handle devices, functions, or 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 by defining links as independent of CCU, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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