ha-nexus-agent

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Check ESPHome dashboard reachability

esphome_ping_dashboard

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify the ESPHome Device Builder dashboard is reachable by calling its /ping endpoint. Diagnose connection failures from compile, validate, or upload operations.

Instructions

Check whether the ESPHome Device Builder dashboard responds.

Resolves where the dashboard is (esphome_dashboard.DashboardLocator, ADR-0004 D2) — an explicit ESPHOME_DASHBOARD_URL (mode "explicit") if set, else in add-on mode the installed ESPHome add-on's own site-ingress port, always dialled at http://127.0.0.1:<ingress_port> (mode "supervisor_ingress") — then calls GET /ping there. A False reachable here does not necessarily mean the add-on itself is down; see diagnosis/advice for what to check next.

Use when: diagnosing a connection failure from esphome_compile_device/esphome_validate_config/esphome_upload_device, or confirming the dashboard is reachable before calling one of them. Not for: add-on version/update status — use esphome_get_addon_info. Returns: {"reachable": True, "url": ..., "mode": "explicit"| "supervisor_ingress", "result": {...}} (the raw /ping JSON) on success. Errors: never raises. On failure: {"reachable": False, "error": <stable code>, "message": ...} — "esphome_not_configured" (neither ESPHOME_DASHBOARD_URL nor the add-on's own info could be resolved) has no url/mode; "esphome_unreachable"/"esphome_auth_required" add url, mode and a diagnosis: {"mode", "dashboard_url", "slug", "addon_state", "ingress", "ingress_port", "advice"} built from the ESPHome add-on's own GET /addons/<slug>/info (slug/addon_state/ ingress/ingress_port are None outside supervisor_ingress mode).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.18.1Jun 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: URL resolution modes, the fact that reachable=False does not imply the add-on is down, the 'never raises' contract, stable error codes, and the shape of the diagnosis object. This is richer than the annotations alone.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the check, then uses labeled Returns/Errors/Use when/Not for blocks that are easy to scan. It is dense and slightly over-specified for an agent (internal class/ADR references like `esphome_dashboard.DashboardLocator`, ADR-0004 D2), which cost it the top mark.

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?

Covers what it does, when to use it, resolution behavior, success shape, and a full error taxonomy including which codes carry url/mode/diagnosis. With an output schema present, return values need not be restated, yet the description still supplies enough for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document, and the description correctly spends no space on parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (ESPHome Device Builder dashboard reachability), and distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by name: 'Not for: add-on version/update status — use esphome_get_addon_info'. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit 'Use when' (diagnosing failures from esphome_compile_device/esphome_validate_config/esphome_upload_device, or pre-flight before calling them) and 'Not for' (add-on info, routed to a named alternative). Both inclusion and exclusion conditions are spelled out.

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

Deploy Server