Ein MCP-Server, mit dem Claude die Smart-Locks der Kwikset-Halo-Familie prüfen und steuern kann (Halo, Halo Keypad, Halo Touch, Halo Select / Select Plus).
Dies ist eine Node.js-Implementierung einer früheren Python-Version, gewechselt wurde, um pythonspezifischen Einrichtungsfreibwurf unter Windows zu vermeiden (fehlender Interpreter, virtualenv-Aktivierung, PATH-Aliasing). Node hat kein exaktes Äquivalent zu aiokwikset (der Python-Bibliothek, auf der die erste Version basierte); diese Version spricht daher direkt Kwiksets Cloud-API an: AWS Cognito für die Anmeldung, dazu eine kleine REST-API für homes/devices/Lock/Unlock.
Woher die API-Details stammen: Kwikset veröffentlicht keine offizielle API. Die Cognito-Pool-/Client-IDs, der API-Host und die REST-Pfade, die dieser Server verwendet, wurden aus dem veröffentlichten, unter Apache-2.0 lizenzierten Quellcode von homebridge-kwikset-halo extrahiert (ein Community-Homebridge-Plugin für genau diese Schlösser), das wiederum aiokwikset für die Erstdokumentation dieser Details würdigt. Details findest du in den Kommentaren in src/const.js und src/cognito.js. Dies ist nicht offiziell durch Kwikset unterstützt und könnte brechen, wenn Kwikset serverseitig etwas ändert.
Teststatus: Jedes Stück Logik auf diesem Server – der Cognito-Login-Ablauf (einschließlich der zweistufigen Telefonverifizierung-Herausforderung), Token-Refresh und Persistenz, das REST-Feld-Mapping, die unlock_door-Bestätigungssperre und jedes MCP-Tool Ende-zu-Ende – wurde gegen handgeschriebene Mocks geprüft, die für AWS Cognito, Kwiksets REST-API und das MCP-SDK stehen; und alles besteht. Was hier nicht getestet werden konnte, war der Aufruf des echten Kwikset-Dienstes, da dies ein echtes Konto und ein physisches Schloss erfordert. Behandle deine ersten list_locks-Aufruf als den echten Smoke-Test – wenn er komplett scheitert (nicht nur ein Feld mit null), sind die Pool-/Host-Konstanten möglicherweise veraltet; wenn ein Tool nulls liefert, führe debug_raw_devices aus, um die echten Feldnamen zu sehen, und vergleiche sie mit src/kwikset-client.js.
Dein Kwikset-Passwort sollte nie durch ein LLM-Gespräch laufen. Daher erfolgt die Authentifizierung genau einmal in einem schlichten Terminal über auth-setup.js, wobei nur die resultierende Session-Tokens lokal abgelegt werden – niemals das Passwort. Der MCP-Server liest diese Tokens bei jeder Verbindung und frischt sie unauffällig auf – er fragt nie Claude, oder dich über Claude, nach deinem Passwort.
Related MCP server: Home Assistant MCP Server
Node.js installieren (18+), falls nicht vorhanden: nodejs.org – die LTS-Installer holen. Überprüfen mit:
node --versionAbhängigkeiten installieren, innerhalb dieses Ordners:
npm installEinmalig anmelden. Anmeldeinformationen können auf drei Arten angegeben werden, die in dieser Reihenfolge geprüft werden:
# 1. CLI flags (any OS/shell)
node auth-setup.js --email you@example.com --password "hunter2"# 2. Environment variables (preferred over the flag above - a
# command-line password is visible to other processes/users on the
# machine and lands in shell history)
# macOS / Linux
KWIKSET_EMAIL=you@example.com KWIKSET_PASSWORD='hunter2' node auth-setup.js# Windows PowerShell
$env:KWIKSET_EMAIL = "you@example.com"
$env:KWIKSET_PASSWORD = "hunter2"
node auth-setup.js# 3. Interactive prompt (any OS/shell; default if nothing else is given)
node auth-setup.jsFalls bei deinem Konto eine Telefonverifizierung erforderlich ist, wirst du nach dem Code zusätzlichen aufgefordert, den Kwikset dir per SMS sendet (oder du gibst ihn gleich mit --mfa-code / $KWIKSET_MFA_CODE an). Dabei wird ~/.kwikset-mcp/tokens.json erzeugt (nur Owner-Lese/Schreibrechte) und dein Passwort wird nach diesem Schritt nie wieder berührt.
Richte Claude auf den Server aus.
Für Claude Code, von diesem Projektverzeichnis heraus:
# macOS / Linux
claude mcp add kwikset -- node "$(pwd)/src/server.js"# Windows PowerShell
claude mcp add kwikset -- node "$PWD\src\server.js"Für Claude Desktop, füge diese Eintrag zu deiner claude_desktop_config.json hinzu (Einstellungen → Entwickler → Konfiguration bearbeiten), und setze den absoluten Pfad zu src/server.js aus dieenem Ordner ein:
{
"mcpServers": {
"kwikset": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/kwikset-mcp/src/server.js"]
}
}
}Unter Windows verwendest du im JSON-Pfad doppelte Backslashes, z.?B. "C:\\Users\\you\\kwikset-mcp\\src\\server.js".
Starte danach den Claude-Client neu, damit er den neuen Server übernimmt.
Einmalig ausprobieren. Frag Claude sowas wie „Liste meine Kwikset-Schlösser auf“ oder „Ist die Haustür verriegelt?“ – er sollte dann list_locks / get_lock_status aufrufen. Das Entsper erfordert eine ausdrückliche Aufforderung, denn unlock_door weigert sich, zu handeln, außer confirm=true wird übergegeben, und Claude macht das nur, wenn du es eindeutig hierum gebeten hast, diese betreffende Tür zu öffnen.
Tool | Beschreibung |
| Alle Locks in Klatt A-Account-Account, mit Status, Akkuladung %, Home |
| Status, Akku, Modell, Seriennummer für ein Schlossans |
| Tür verriegeln |
| Tür entriegeln ( |
| Diagnose: rohe, unformatierte Home-/Device-JSON von Kwikset-API |
Wenn Tokens ablaufen und nicht leise aktualisiert werden können (z. B. weil das Kwikset-Passwort geändert wurde oder 2FA zurückgesetzt wurde), legeben Tool-Aufrufe einen auth_required-Fehler mit Anweisungen zurück – einfach node auth-setup.js erneut ausführen.
kwikset-mcp/
├── auth-setup.js # run once, by hand, to log in
├── src/
│ ├── const.js # Cognito pool/client IDs, API host (see caveats above)
│ ├── auth.js # local token file read/write
│ ├── cognito.js # AWS Cognito login/refresh (amazon-cognito-identity-js)
│ ├── kwikset-client.js # REST calls: homes, devices, lock/unlock
│ └── server.js # MCP server + tool definitions
├── package.json
└── .gitignoreDiagnostic tool: dumps the raw, unprocessed home/device JSON straight from Kwikset's API. Use this only when another tool returns null fields (name/status/battery, etc) - that means Kwikset renamed a field this server looks for, and this shows the real field names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states this is a diagnostic read-only dump and explains the failure mode it addresses. It doesn't explicitly state side effects or caveats, but 'dumps' combined with 'Diagnostic tool' implies no mutation, and the scope is well defined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly two sentences, with the most essential fact ('Diagnostic tool') front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: the source of data, the triggering condition, and the reason for the null-field symptom. No filler or repetition exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fully covers what an agent needs: when to invoke this tool, what it returns, and why the output matters. No parameters or output schema are required, and the diagnostic purpose is unlikely to require further detail about return values or error handling for correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and a 100% schema description coverage (vacuously, since the schema is empty). The description explains the nature of the output ('raw, unprocessed... JSON') and the diagnostic trigger, which is sufficient because no parameter guidance is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('dumps the raw, unprocessed home/device JSON') and a clear resource ('straight from Kwikset's API'). It identifies itself as a 'Diagnostic tool,' which immediately distinguishes it from the sibling commands that perform listing, status, and locking actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives an explicit condition for when to use it: 'Use this only when another tool returns null fields.' It also explains the reasoning (Kwikset renamed a field) and the expected value (shows real field names), leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the current status (locked/unlocked/jammed), battery level, and model/serial for one lock. Get device_id from list_locks first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device_id | Yes | A lock's device_id, from list_locks |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It indicates a read-only retrieve operation by the word 'Get' and lists the data returned, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, failure/error behavior for a bad device_id, or whether status is live vs cached.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences contain only useful information: what the tool returns and the required prerequisite. The action and scope are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what will be returned and how to get the parameter. It omits edge-case behavior, but the essential calling context is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, giving baseline 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by telling the agent where to obtain device_id and that it must be obtained first from list_locks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb ('Get'), names the exact resource ('current status ... for one lock'), and enumerates the returned fields (status, battery level, model/serial). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_locks (listing) and lock_door/unlock_door (actuation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear prerequisite and data source: 'Get device_id from list_locks first.' It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool, but the operation is unique among the siblings, so the workflow instruction is the main needed guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List every Kwikset lock on the account, with its current status, battery percentage, and the home it belongs to. Call this first to find a lock's device_id before locking/unlocking/checking it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It clearly states what the tool returns (locks with status, battery, and home) and implies that the device_id is obtainable from the result, which is essential for subsequent operations. It does not explicitly mention side effects (likely read-only) or edge cases, but for a simple listing tool this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, with the core purpose and returned content front-loaded and the usage guidance provided second. There is no wasted wording or off-topic detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it relative to siblings. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but given the simple nature of the tool and absence of parameters or output schema, this is a minor gap and does not hinder correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies because there is nothing to explain, and the description does not omit any required parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('every Kwikset lock on the account'), and enumerates the returned fields (status, battery, home). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target individual locks (lock_door, unlock_door, get_lock_status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Call this first to find a lock's device_id before locking/unlocking/checking it.' This gives a direct and clear usage directive that routes the agent to this tool before the sibling operations, and implies when not to use it (after you have the device_id).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Lock a Kwikset door. Get device_id from list_locks first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device_id | Yes | A lock's device_id, from list_locks |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention side effects beyond locking, required permissions, failure modes, idempotency, or what response to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences front-load the action and then give the essential prerequisite. There is no filler or redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter and a clear action, so the description is minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves return/error behavior and side-effect expectations unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already says device_id comes from list_locks. The description repeats that prerequisite but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Lock a Kwikset door') and the prerequisite ('Get device_id from list_locks first') further clarifies its role. It is clearly distinct from unlock_door and list_locks without needing to read their schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear usage context by instructing the agent to obtain device_id from list_locks first. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name unlock_door as the alternative, but the command's action is self-explanatory enough for basic routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Unlock a Kwikset door. This is a physical-security-sensitive action - only call this after the user has explicitly asked to unlock this specific door, and pass confirm=true. Calling with confirm=false (the default) is a no-op that returns a reminder instead of unlocking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Must be true to actually unlock the door. | |
| device_id | Yes | A lock's device_id, from list_locks |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility, and it delivers. It flags the action as physical-security-sensitive, states the confirmation requirement, and discloses that calling with confirm=false is a no-op that returns a reminder instead of unlocking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then packs the security warning, caller precondition, and confirmation behavior into compact, high-value language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter physical-security action with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: the requirement for explicit user consent, the needed confirmation flag, and the no-op fallback. Nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema by specifying that confirm=true is required and that false leads to a no-op reminder, which is not fully captured in the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Unlock a Kwikset door.' It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like lock_door and list_locks, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only after the user has explicitly asked to unlock this specific door. It also requires confirm=true and explains that confirm=false is a deliberate no-op, providing clear behavior boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0debug_raw_devicesget_lock_statuslist_lockslock_doorunlock_doorScored across 5 tools
Each tool has a crystal-clear, non-overlapping purpose: listing all locks, fetching one lock's status, locking, unlocking, and debugging raw API data. No two tools could be confused for each other.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_locks, get_lock_status, lock_door, unlock_door, debug_raw_devices). The naming is uniform and predictable.
Five tools is perfectly scoped for a smart-lock management server. Each tool addresses an essential core function, with no redundancy and no obvious missing high-level operation.
The core lifecycle for lock management is fully covered: list, get status, lock, and unlock. The debug tool covers a diagnostic edge case, making the surface feel complete for its stated purpose.
Control your Tesla from your AI assistant - climate, charging, access, and security.
Connect Claude to your Platform7n workspaces — chat, links, and tasks. One-click OAuth.
WHOOP recovery, strain, sleep and workouts in Claude via official WHOOP OAuth. Free, open source.
Run UX research from Claude — create card sort studies, list studies, pull headline stats.
