debmatic-mcp

List Rooms

list_rooms

Read-only

Retrieve all rooms with their assigned channel IDs to identify which devices belong to each room. Pair with device listing for full room-device mapping.

Instructions

List all rooms with their assigned channel IDs. Use with list_devices to find devices by room.

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

First observedv1.1.2Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds that it returns channel IDs, but no further behavioral details like ordering or filtering limitations are provided.

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 core purpose, no redundant or filler content.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, output schema present, annotations rich), the description provides adequate information. Could mention that it returns all rooms without filters, but it's implied by 'list all rooms'.

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%, so the schema fully documents the optional 'target' parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning or format details beyond the schema.

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 action ('List') and resource ('all rooms'), and specifies the output includes 'assigned channel IDs'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning usage with list_devices.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides a clear context: 'Use with list_devices to find devices by room'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives, though the sibling context implies it.

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