rachio-mcp

get_active_alerts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve unresolved alerts for a Rachio sprinkler controller or specific zone, such as low flow, high current, or freeze skip. Supply either a device ID or zone ID to identify issues needing attention.

Instructions

Return unresolved alerts for a device or a specific zone.

Alerts include things like low flow, high current, freeze skip, rain skip, hardware faults. Exactly one of device_id or zone_id must be supplied.

Args: device_id: Controller UUID to query alerts for. zone_id: Zone UUID to query alerts for.

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": "get_active_alerts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`zone_id`	No
`device_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; description adds context on what alerts include (low flow, high current, etc.) and the one-of constraint. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise with 4 sentences and a list, no filler. Structure is front-loaded with purpose, then parameters.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool has only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, parameter meanings, and example alert types. No gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description provides meaningful docstrings for both parameters, specifying they are UUIDs for controller and zone respectively.

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 returns unresolved alerts for a device or zone, with specific examples of alert types. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_device or get_zone.

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?

Explicitly states that exactly one of device_id or zone_id must be supplied, providing clear usage constraint. Does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but purpose is clear enough.

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