用于与 Home Assistant 交互的模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器。此服务器提供一些工具，用于通过支持 MCP 的应用程序控制和监控您的 Home Assistant 设备。
该项目是人工智能模型上下文协议 (MCP) 生态系统的一部分。如需了解更多关于 MCP 工具的信息和文档，请访问www.aimcp.info 。
获取设备状态
控制设备状态（开/关）
触发自动化
列出可用实体
Related MCP server: Hass-MCP
克隆此存储库：
git clone https://github.com/yourusername/homeassistant-server-mcp.git
cd homeassistant-server-mcp安装依赖项：
npm install构建项目：
npm run build通过将以下内容添加到您的 MCP 设置文件（对于 VSCode，通常位于~/Library/Application Support/Code/User/globalStorage/saoudrizwan.claude-dev/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json ）来配置 MCP 服务器：
{
"mcpServers": {
"homeassistant": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/homeassistant-mcp/homeassistant-server/build/index.js"],
"env": {
"HA_URL": "http://your-homeassistant-url:8123",
"HA_TOKEN": "your-long-lived-access-token"
}
}
}
}用您的 Home Assistant 实例 URL 和访问令牌替换your-homeassistant-url和your-long-lived-access-token token。
该服务器提供以下工具：
// Example usage
use_mcp_tool({
server_name: "homeassistant",
tool_name: "get_state",
arguments: {
entity_id: "light.living_room"
}
});// Example usage
use_mcp_tool({
server_name: "homeassistant",
tool_name: "toggle_entity",
arguments: {
entity_id: "switch.bedroom",
state: "on" // or "off"
}
});// Example usage
use_mcp_tool({
server_name: "homeassistant",
tool_name: "trigger_automation",
arguments: {
automation_id: "automation.morning_routine"
}
});// Example usage
use_mcp_tool({
server_name: "homeassistant",
tool_name: "list_entities",
arguments: {
domain: "light" // optional, filters by domain
}
});欢迎贡献！您可以通过以下方式提供帮助：
分叉存储库
创建你的功能分支（ git checkout -b feature/amazing-feature ）
提交您的更改（ git commit -m 'Add some amazing feature' ）
推送到分支（ git push origin feature/amazing-feature ）
打开拉取请求
请确保适当更新测试并遵循现有的代码风格。
有关 MCP 工具和生态系统的详细文档：
检查网站上的 MCP 工具目录
阅读集成指南和最佳实践
该项目根据 MIT 许可证获得许可 - 详情见下文：
MIT License
Copyright (c) 2024 homeassistant-mcp
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.要安全地使用此服务器：
始终对 Home Assistant 实例使用 HTTPS
确保访问令牌的安全，切勿将其提交到版本控制
定期轮换您的访问令牌
使用环境变量来获取敏感信息
如果您遇到任何问题或有疑问，请：
检查存储库中现有的问题
如果您的问题尚未报告，请创建新问题
报告问题时提供尽可能多的背景信息
访问www.aimcp.info获取更多支持资源
Get the current state of a Home Assistant entity
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | Yes | The entity ID to get state for (e.g., light.living_room) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns error states, or what the output format might be (e.g., JSON with state attributes). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get the current state'). There is zero waste—every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., state value, attributes, timestamps) or potential errors, which is critical for a read operation in a home automation context. The description alone is insufficient for full agent understanding.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'entity_id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples beyond the schema's 'light.living_room', no context on entity ID formats). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current state of a Home Assistant entity'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_entities' (which likely lists entities rather than getting state) or 'toggle_entity' (which changes state), but the specificity of 'current state' provides some implicit distinction.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_entities' or 'toggle_entity'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid entity ID) or exclusions (e.g., not for modifying state). Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all available entities in Home Assistant
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | Optional domain filter (e.g., light, switch, automation) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, return format, or whether it's safe/read-only. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of entities. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., entity IDs, names, states) or behavioral aspects like safety. For a listing tool in this context, more detail would be helpful.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'domain' documented as an optional filter. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('all available entities in Home Assistant'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_state' which might also retrieve entity information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 like 'get_state' (which might retrieve specific entity states) or 'toggle_entity' (which modifies entities). The description implies a broad listing function but doesn't specify use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Toggle a Home Assistant entity on/off
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | Yes | The entity ID to toggle (e.g., switch.bedroom) | |
| state | Yes | The desired state (on/off) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this is a destructive/mutative operation (implied but not explicit), error handling, or side effects (e.g., triggering automations).
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple toggle operation with well-documented parameters.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutative tool. It lacks context on permissions, error responses, or what happens post-toggle (e.g., state change confirmation), leaving gaps for agent usage.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (entity_id with examples, state with enum). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool uses these parameters, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the verb ('toggle') and resource ('a Home Assistant entity'), specifying the action of switching between on/off states. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_state' (read-only) and 'list_entities' (listing), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'trigger_automation' (which might involve entities).
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., entity must be toggleable), exclusions (e.g., not for sensors), or compare to siblings like 'get_state' for checking current state before toggling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Trigger a Home Assistant automation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| automation_id | Yes | The automation ID to trigger (e.g., automation.morning_routine) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'trigger' implies an action that may have side effects (e.g., starting an automation sequence), the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the automation fails, or if there are rate limits. It lacks critical context for a mutation tool.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter. Every word earns its place.
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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling, response format, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate.
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 100%, with the single parameter 'automation_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how to find automation IDs or provide examples beyond the schema's example). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action ('trigger') and the resource ('a Home Assistant automation'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (get_state, list_entities, toggle_entity) which all operate on different resources, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself in context.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid automation ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like toggle_entity. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0get_statelist_entitiestoggle_entitytrigger_automationEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: get_state retrieves entity status, list_entities enumerates available entities, toggle_entity changes binary states, and trigger_automation initiates automations. The actions (get, list, toggle, trigger) and targets (state, entities, entity, automation) are uniquely paired, eliminating any ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: get_state, list_entities, toggle_entity, and trigger_automation. The verbs are precise and descriptive, and the naming convention is uniform across all four tools, making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 4 tools, the count is slightly low but reasonable for basic Home Assistant control. It covers core operations like monitoring and toggling entities, and triggering automations, though it lacks advanced actions like setting specific states or managing scenes, which might be expected in a more comprehensive set.
The tool set covers essential read and toggle operations for entities and automations, providing a functional surface for basic interactions. However, there are minor gaps, such as the inability to set specific entity states (e.g., brightness or temperature) or manage other Home Assistant components like scenes or scripts, which could limit more complex agent workflows.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
A TypeScript MCP server for Home Assistant, enabling programmatic management of entities, automati…
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
The Mercado Pago MCP Server implements the Model Context Protocol to provide AI agents and LLMs with access to Mercado Pago's APIs and tools within compatible development environments. It acts as an intermediary that translates Mercado Pago resources into executable functions (tools) that AI applications can invoke to perform actions and automate flows. The server simplifies integration, enables using documentation to implement or improve code, and optimizes operations through natural language interactions without manual implementations.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/hekmon8/Homeassistant-server-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
