Fibaro MCP

fibaro_variable

Manage Fibaro Home Center global variables: list, get, set, create, or delete variables using natural language commands.

Instructions

Variable intent tool: list/get/set/create/delete global variables.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "op": "<op>"
    },
    "name": "fibaro_variable"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`format`	No	Output format: text (default) or json (stringified MCP result)
`op`	Yes	Operation: list\|get\|set\|create\|delete
`name`	No	Variable name
`value`	No	Variable value (op=set/create)
`variable`	No	Advanced create payload (op=create)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the operations available but fails to mention side effects, idempotency, permissions, or response behavior. For a tool that modifies state (create/delete/update), this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (one sentence) but includes redundant phrasing ('Variable intent tool'). It could be more concise while retaining clarity. Not overly verbose, but not optimally structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 5 parameters (with nested objects) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits details on return values, error handling, and advanced usage (e.g., the 'variable' object payload). The tool's complexity demands a more complete description.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond listing the operations. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance understanding of the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool manages global variables with operations list/get/set/create/delete, making the purpose specific and actionable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., fibaro_device, fibaro_scene), though the resource type is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use or not use this tool relative to alternatives. While sibling tools cover different resources, the description offers no contextual cues or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage independently.

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

Deploy Server