debmatic-mcp

List Programs

list_programs

Read-only

List all HomeMatic automation programs, with optional name filtering, to locate and trigger the desired program.

Instructions

List all automation programs. Use execute_program to trigger them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Filter by program name (substring, case-insensitive)
`target`	No	CCU target to read from (default: active). See list_ccu_targets.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`programs`	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"
+}

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": {
+    "programs": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "programs"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.1.2Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond listing all programs and the redirection to execute_program, which is adequate but not enhanced.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no wasted words. Ideal structure.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, full parameter descriptions in the schema, and annotations covering behavioral aspects, the description sufficiently covers the main action and directs to the relevant sibling for triggering. Slightly more could be said about filtering or target specificity, but it's largely complete.

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 both parameters described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists all automation programs, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool execute_program by mentioning it for triggering.

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 provides guidance on using execute_program after listing, but lacks broader context on when to use this tool over other list tools (e.g., list_devices, list_functions) among many siblings.

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