Home Automation Mcp
Server Details
MCP server for Home Automation
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 1.5/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Three tools (get_home_automation_data, list_home_automation_items, search_home_automation) have overlapping purposes of retrieving data without clear differentiation. Only health_check is distinctly different.
Naming conventions are mixed: 'health_check' lacks the home_automation prefix, and the other tools use inconsistent suffixes (_data, _items, or none). No uniform verb_noun pattern.
4 tools is borderline small for a home automation server, but could be acceptable if the scope is limited to data retrieval. However, the narrow focus suggests more tools might be needed.
The tool set lacks any control or management operations (e.g., turn on/off, schedule). Only data retrieval and health check are present, leaving major gaps for home automation.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_home_automation_dataDInspect
Tool: get_home_automation_data. Uses: httpx public APIs. Price: ${PRICE_PER_CALL}/call
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only hints at HTTP usage and cost, failing to disclose whether this is a read operation, any side effects, or required authentication.
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 extremely brief but lacks actual content; it is under-specified rather than concise, with no coherent sentences.
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?
With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no behavioral details, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand what the tool does or how to use it.
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 sole parameter 'id' has no description in schema (0% coverage) and the description adds no explanation of its meaning or expected format.
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?
Description merely restates the tool name as 'Tool: get_home_automation_data' and mentions 'Uses: httpx public APIs' without specifying what data is retrieved or how it differs from siblings like list or search.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the existence of list_ and search_ siblings implies a single-item retrieval, but no explicit context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
health_checkDInspect
Health check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a one-word description, there is no disclosure of behavior like side effects, response format, or authorization requirements. The agent receives no additional insight beyond the tool name.
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 extremely short (two words) but is under-specification rather than concise. It fails to convey necessary information, making it unhelpful for an AI agent.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is still completely inadequate. It omits what the health check verifies, what it returns, and any operational context.
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 the baseline score is 4 per the rubric. While the description adds no value, the trivial schema already covers all expectations.
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?
Description 'Health check.' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what system or endpoint is checked. It fails to distinguish the tool from siblings like get_home_automation_data.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_home_automation. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_home_automation_itemsDInspect
Tool: list_home_automation_items. Uses: httpx public APIs. Price: ${PRICE_PER_CALL}/call
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filters | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must disclose behavior. It only mentions using httpx APIs and a price, but does not explain whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or subject to rate limits. No side effects or permissions noted.
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?
Description is short (2 sentences) but severely under-specified. Conciseness is not achieved because critical information is missing.
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?
No output schema provided, and description does not mention return values, pagination, or data structure. For a tool listing items, this is a critical gap.
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?
Single parameter 'filters' with schema description coverage 0%. Description adds no meaning or examples; the schema only shows an object with additionalProperties true. Agent has no idea what filters to provide.
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?
Description merely restates the tool name and lacks any specific verb or resource. It does not distinguish from siblings like get_home_automation_data or search_home_automation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_home_automation or health_check. Description provides no context on use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_home_automationDInspect
Tool: search_home_automation. Uses: httpx public APIs. Price: ${PRICE_PER_CALL}/call
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only mentions a price and 'httpx public APIs' but does not disclose any behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication, or side effects.
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 extremely short but lacks substance. It uses a template-like format but provides no useful content beyond the tool name and pricing.
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?
With only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, what constitutes a valid query, or any usage context.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any meaning to the 'query' parameter. It fails to explain what the query represents or how it should be formatted.
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 only mentions 'Tool: search_home_automation' and 'Uses: httpx public APIs' without stating a clear verb+resource. The verb 'search' is implied but not explained, and no distinction from sibling tools is provided.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_home_automation_items or get_home_automation_data. No context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!